*^j§=5^^Si~;~22i:~r^~ 


".  r\  —  ,-^    'rr,^ 


Si.  v 


j-  o  it  K»  nsr  .a.  Xj 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION 


STATE   OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE, 


DECEMBER,    1876 


CONCORD: 

EDWARD    A.    JENKS,    STATE    PRINTER. 
1877. 


» 


y 


s 


JH 


L 

2,32,5" 
19% 


JOUENAL 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


Concord,  December  6,  1S76. 
The  delegates  elected  to  the  Constitutional  Convention  assem- 
bled in  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  Wednes- 
day, December  6,  1S76,  at  eleven  o'clock  in  the  forenoon,  and 
were  called  to  order  by  W.  H.  Y.  Hackett  of  Portsmouth. 

On  motion  of  George  N.  Eastman  of  Farmington,  W.  H.  Y. 
Hackett  of  Portsmouth  was  chosen  temporary  chairman. 

On  motion  of  J.  H.  Gallinger  of  Concord,  C.  C.  Danforth 
of  Concord  was  chosen  temporary  secretary. 

On  motion  of  Joseph  Wentworth  of  Concord, 

Resolved,  That  a  committee,  consisting  of  two  delegates  from 
each  county,  be  appointed  by  the  chair  to  inquire  who  are 
elected  delegates  to  this  convention. 

The  following  named  gentlemen  were  appointed  as  such  com- 
mittee : 

MERRIMACK   COUNTY. 

Joseph  Wentworth  of  Concord, 
John  M.  Shirley  of  Andover. 

ROCKINGHAM    COUNTY. 

John  J.  Bell  of  Exeter, 

Henry  F.  Wendell  of  Portsmouth. 


346215 


4  JOURNAL  OF  THE 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY. 

George  N.  Eastman  of  Farmington, 
Eben  E.  Berry  of  New  Durham. 

BELKNAP   COUNTY. 

Thomas  J.  Whipple  of  Laconia, 
Benjamin  J.  Cole  of  Gilford. 

CARROLL    COUNTY. 

W.  H.  H.  Mason  of  Moultonborough, 
Samuel  D.  Quarles  of  Ossipee. 

HILLSBOROUGH    COUNTY. 

Charles  H.  Bartlett  of  Manchester, 
Dana  Sargent  of  Hudson. 

CHESHIRE     COUNTY. 

Francis  A.  Faulkner  of  Keene, 
Willard  W.  Pierce  of  Westmoreland. 

SULLIVAN    COUNTY. 

William  C.  Sturoc  of  Sunapee, 
Chester  Pike  of  Cornish. 

GRAFTON    COUNTY. 

Albert  M.  Shaw  of  Lebanon, 
George  F.  Putnam  of  Warren. 

coos   COUNTY. 
Adams  Twitchell  of  Milan, 
Hazen  Bedel  of  Colebrook. 

Jacob  Benton  of  Lancaster  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  two  from  each  county  be  ap- 
pointed to  report  a  list  of  officers  for  the  permanent  organiza- 
tion of  the  convention. 

E.  B.  S.  Sanborn  of  Franklin  remarked  that,  from  various 
suggestions  that  had  been  made  to  him,  he  found  that  a  great 
many  delegates  would  rather  cast  their  ballots  direct,  than  to 
vote  upon  the  report  of  a  committee.  He  hoped  the  resolu- 
tion would  not  be  adopted. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  5 

S.  B.  Page  of  Haverhill  hoped  that  members  would  be 
allowed  to  vote  for  a  presiding  officer  directly,  uncompromised 
by  any  feeling  that  the  report  of  a  committee  would  create. 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster  said  he  had  introduced  the  resolu- 
tion simply  to  bring  the  subject  directly  to  the  attention  of  the 
delegates.  He  had  supposed  that  every  man  was  free  to  act 
according  to  his  independent  conviction,  and  would  vote  for 
the  candidate  of  his  choice. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wentworth  of  Concord,  the  resolution  was 
laid  on  the  table. 

On  motion  of  Samuel  M.  Wheeler  of  Dover, 

Resolved,  That  when  this  convention  adjourns,  it  adjourn  to 
meet  this  afternoon  at  half  past  two  o'clock. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover  the  convention  ad- 
journed. 

AFTERNOON. 

The  convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

Mr.  Wentworth,  for  the  committee  on  credentials,  reported 
that  prima  facie  evidence  had  been  presented  to  them  of  the 
election  of  the  following  named  persons  as  delegates  to  this 
convention,  and  the  report  was  accepted  : 

ROCKINGHAM   COUNTY. 

Atkinson Greenleaf  Clarke. 

Auburn Charles  C.  Grant. 

Brentwood William  Morrill. 

Chester William  Greenough. 

Candia Plumer  W.  Sanborn. 

Levi  Bean. 

Danville David  Griffin. 

Deny William  W.  Poor. 

Rums  Tilton. 
Deerfield Samuel  C.  Danforth. 

Robert  C.  Bickford. 

East  Kingston John  B.  Morrill. 

Epping Thomas  Folsom. 

David  Edgerly. 


6  JOURNAL   OF  THE 

Exeter John  J.  Bell. 

William  W.  Stickney. 

William  B.  Morrill. 

Gilman  Marston. 

Fremont George  L.  Sanborn. 

Greenland John  S.  H.  Frink. 

Hampstead Albert  L.  Eastman. 

Hampton Joseph  Dow. 

Hampton  Falls Nehemiah  P.  Cram. 

Kensington Jonathan  E.  Brown. 

Kingston John  B.  Hanson. 

Londonderry Alexander  M.  Corning. 

John  Dickey. 
Newmarket John  J.  Robinson. 

Charles  H.  Smith. 

Newcastle William  A.  Maloon. 

Newino-ton Nehemiah  Pickering. 

Newton Edward  P.  Wallace. 

North  Hampton David  P.  Moulton. 

Nottingham Charles  H.  Batchelder. 

Northwood John  B.  Clarke. 

Plaistow Nathaniel  H.  Clark. 

Portsmouth— Ward    i Ichabod  Goodwin. 

James  W.  Emery. 

William  H.  Y.  Hackett. 
Ward  2 Titus  Salter  Tredick. 

William  H.  Hackett. 

Alfred  F.  Howard. 

Joseph  P.  Morse. 

"Ward  3 Israel  Marden. 

Ward  4 Daniel  Marcy. 

Henry  F.  Wendell. 

Raymond John  F.  Brown. 

Rve David  Jenness. 

Salem Joseph  Webster. 

Levi  Clough. 

Sandown Ebenezer  Hoyt,  2d. 

South  Hampton Joseph  J.  J.  Sawyer. 

South  Newmarket Amos  Paul. 

Stratham Charles  N.  Healey. 

Windham Horace  Berry. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
STRAFFORD  COUNT V. 

Dover — Ward  I John  H.  Laighton. 

Asa  S.  Baker. 

Ward  2 William  S.  Stevens. 

Joseph  D.  Guppy. 
John  B.  Bruce. 

Ward  3 Samuel  M.  Wheeler. 

Zimri  S.  Wallingford. 
Charles  H.  Horton. 

Ward  4 George  B.  Spaulding. 

John  E.  Bickford. 
John  Clements. 

Durham Joshua  B.  Smith. 

Farmington George  N.  Eastman. 

Jeremy  O.  Nute. 
John  I.  Huckins. 

Lee Seth  W.  Woodman. 

Madbury Charles  R.  Meserve. 

Middleton Cyrus  B.  Perkins. 

Milton Joseph  Plummer. 

Elbridge  W.  Fox. 

New  Durham Eben  E.  Berry. 

Rochester Nicholas  V.  Whitehouse. 

Ebenezer  G.  Wallace. 
James  H.  Edgerly. 
Franklin  McDuffee. 
Charles  E.  Jenkins. 

Rollinsford John  Q.  A.  Wentworth. 

Somersworth George  Wm.  Burleigh. 

Otis  B.  Morse. 
Thomas  G.  Jameson. 
Micajah  C.  Burleigh. 
True  Wm.  Woodman. 

Strafford Aaron  W.  Foss. 

Jacob  B.  Smith. 

BELKNAP   COUNTV. 

Alton Amos  L.  Rollins. 

Lafayette  Woodman. 
Barnstead Samuel  A.  Hodgdon. 

Charles  S.  George. 

Center  Harbor Alonzo  Perkins. 

Gilford Orastus  H.  Key. 

Benjamin  J.  Cole. 
Thomas  Weeks. 


8  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

Gilmanton Charles  F.  Sargent. 

Henry  E.  Marsh. 
Laconia Thomas  J.  Whipple. 

Nelson  Richardson. 

Jonathan  G.  Dow. 
Meredith Bradbury  C.  Tuttle. 

Thaddeus  S.  Moses. 

New  Hampton George  H.  Dickerman. 

Sanbornton Person  C.  Shaw. 

Tilton Bradbury  T.  Brown. 

CARROLL    COUNTY. 

Albany , Hiram  Mason. 

Bartlett George  W.  M.  Pitman. 

Frank  George. 

Brookfield Dudley  C.  Colman. 

Chatham Osborn  Anderson. 

Conway Hiram  C.  Abbott. 

Jeremiah  A.  Farring 

Eaton Benjamin  F.  Wakefield. 

Effingham John  V.  Granville. 

Freedom , ■• Stephen  Danforth. 

Hart's  Location John  O.  Cobb. 

Madison James  J.  Merrow. 

Moultonborough William  H.  H.  Mason. 

Ossipee Sanborn  B.  Carter. 

Samuel  D.  Ouarles. 
Sandwich John  H.  Plumer. 

Paul  Wentworth. 

Tamworth Nathaniel  Hubbard. 

Tuftonborough Marquis  DeL.  McDuffee. 

Wakefield John  W.  Sanborn. 

Wolfeborough Jethro  R.  Furber. 

Thomas  L.  Whitton. 

MERRIMACK    COUNTY. 

Allenstown John  Perkins. 

Andover John  M.  Shirley. 

Henry  M.  Bosworth. 

Boscawen Isaac  K.  Gage. 

Bow Andrew  Gault. 

Bradford John  W.  Morse. 

Canterbury James  O.  Lyford. 

Chichester Edward  Langmaid. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Concord— Ward  i John  S.  Brown. 

Daniel  W.  Fox. 

Ward  2 John  L.  Tallant. 

Ward  3 Abijah  Hollis. 

Ward  4 Ai  13.  Thompson. 

Jacob  H.  Gallinger. 

Benjamin  E.  Badger. 
Ward  5 Jonathan  E.  Sargent. 

John  Kimball. 

William  E.  Chandler. 
Ward  6 Joseph  Wentworth. 

Benjamin  A.  Kimball. 

Lewis  Downing. 
Ward  7 William  W.  Critchett. 

Isaac  W.  Hammond. 

Epsom Paran  Philbrick. 

Franklin Isaac  N.  Blodgett. 

David  Gilchrist. 

Edward  B.  S.  Sanborn. 

Henniker Oliver  H.  Noyes. 

Hill Isaac  T.  Parker. 

Hooksett William  F.  Head. 

Hopkinton John  F.  Jones. 

John  M.  Harvey. 
Loudon Jeremiah  Blake. 

Harris  E.  Morse. 

Newbury Sprague  A.  Morse. 

New  London Daniel  E.  Colby. 

Northfield Warren  H.  Smith. 

Pembroke Aaron  Whittemore. 

Trueworthy  L.  Fowler. 

Pittsfield Charles  T.  B.  Knowlton. 

Henry  L.  Robinson. 

Salisbury Nathaniel  Bean. 

Warner Nehemiah  G.  Ordway. 

William  H.  Walker. 

Webster Edward  Buxton. 

Wilmot William  W.  Flanders. 

HILLSBOROUGH   COUNTY. 

Amherst J.  G.  Davis. 

Antrim Nathan  C.  Jameson. 

Bedford Charles  H.  Kendall. 

Bennington Henry  J.  Burtt. 


10  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

Brookline Joseph  A.  Hall. 

Deering Freeman  Dow. 

Francestown Garvin  S.  Sleeper. 

Goffstown Alfred  Poor. 

Jabez  B.  Pattee. 

Greenfield David  Starrett. 

Greenville James  L.  Chamberlain. 

Hancock John  H.  Felch. 

Hillsborough Cornelius  Cooledge. 

Brooks  K.  Webber. 

Hollis John  Woods. 

Hudson Dana  Sargent. 

Litchfield Samuel  Chase. 

Manchester — Ward  i George  C.  Gilmore. 

John  W.  Severance. 

Albert  Maxfield. 
Ward  2 Frederick  Smyth. 

Arthur  M.  Eastman. 
Ward  3 Daniel  Clark. 

James  F.  Briggs. 

Charles  H.  Bartlett. 

Hiram  K.  Slayton. 

Charles  E.  Balch. 
Ward  4 Nathan  Parker. 

Bradbury  P.  Cilley. 

Waterman  Smith. 

Thomas  P.  Cheney. 
Ward  5 Samuel  P.  Jackson. 

Patrick  A.  Devine. 

James  Sullivan. 

Thomas  Connolly. 

Charles  A.  O'Connor. 

William  F.  Byrnes. 
Ward  6 John  P.  Moore. 

George  Holbrook. 

Jonathan  Y.  McOuesten. 
Ward  7 .Marshall  P.  Hall. 

Joseph  W.  Bean. 
Ward  8 Allen  N.  Clapp. 

Charles  K.  Walker. 

Merrimack Ward  Parker. 

Milford Isaac  P.  Abbott. 

Charles  F.  Fiske. 

Joseph  Crosby. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  II 

Mont  Vernon Charles  G.  Smith. 

Nashua — Ward  I George  A.  Ramsdell. 

Ward  2 Jphn  G.  Kimball. 

Ward  3 Abi  A.  Saunders. 

Ward  4 Edward  Spalding. 

Ward  5 Ross  C.  Duffy. 

Ward  6 John  Tilton. 

Cornelius  V.  Dearborn. 
Henry  Parkinson. 

Ward  7 J.  P.  S.  Otterson. 

Horace  W.  Gilman. 

Ward  8 Jonathan  Smothers. 

New  Boston Henry  Hutchinson. 

New  Ipswich Henry  O.  Preston. 

Pelham F.  M.  Woodbury. 

Peterborough Albert  S.  Scott. 

Ezra  M.  Smith. 

Sharon Derostus  P.  Emory. 

Temple William  P.  Bacon. 

Weare Alonzo  H.  Wood. 

Oliver  D.  Sawyer. 

Wilton George  S.  Neville. 

William  A.  Jones. 
Windsor Francis  G.  Dresser. 

CHESHIRE   COUNTY. 

Alstead Cyrus  K.  Vilas. 

Chesterfield Jay  Jackson. 

Dublin Henry  C.  Piper. 

Fitzwilliam John  M.  Parker. 

Gilsum Daniel  W.  Bill. 

Harrisville Samuel  D.  Bemis. 

Hinsdale Charles  J.  Amidon. 

Henry  M.  Jones. 

Jaffrey Benjamin  Pierce. 

Keene — Ward  i Edward  Gustine. 

Silas  Hardy. 

Ward  2. Thomas  E.  Hatch. 

Ward  3 Elbridge  Clarke. 

Leonard  Wellington. 

Ward  4 Francis  A.  Faulkner. 

Ward  5 Henry  S.  Martin. 

Marlow John  O.  Jones. 


12  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

Marlborough Levi  A.  Fuller. 

Nelson Josiah  H.  Melville. 

Rindge Zebulon  Converse. 

Richmond Nathan  F.  Newell. 

Roxbury Brigham  Nims. 

Stoddard Ephraim  Stevens. 

Sullivan *. Asa  E.  Wilson. 

Surry George  K.  Harvey. 

Swanzey Benjamin  F.  Lombard. 

Stephen  Faulkner. 

Troy David  W.  Farrar. 

Walpole David  Buffum. 

Charles  Fisher. 

Westmoreland Willard  W.  Pierce. 

Winchester Ellery  Albee. 

Sidney  M.  Morse. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY. 

Acworth Charles  K.  Brooks. 

Charlestown Benjamin  Labaree. 

Abel  Hunt. 
Claremont Nathaniel  Tolles. 

John  S.  Walker. 

George  H.  Stowell. 

Albert  F.  Winn. 

Stephen  F.  Rossiter. 

Cornish Chester  Pike. 

Croydon Pliny  Hall. 

Goshen Hiram  Sholes. 

Grantham Thomas  B.  Alexander. 

Langdon William  P.  Wilson. 

Lempster Cyrus  H.  Hodgman. 

Newport Levi  W.  Barton. 

Dexter  Richards. 

John  B.  Cooper. 

Plainfield Fred  Moulton. 

Springfield Daniel  N.  Adams. 

Sunapee William  C.  Sturoc. 

Unity Joseph  M.  Perkins. 

Washington George  W.  Carr. 

GRAFTON   COUNTY. 

Alexandria Orrin  S.  Gale. 

Ashland Barnett  Hughes. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  1 3 

Bath Solomon  S.  Carbee. 

Benton George  W.  Mann. 

Bethlehem John  G.  Sinclair. 

Willis  Wilder. 

Bridgwater Nathaniel  Batchelder. 

Bristol William  A.  Beckford. 

Marshall  W.  White. 

Canaan Charles  Day. 

George  W.  Murray. 

Dorchester Abner  Blodgett. 

Enfield Everett  B.  Huse. 

James  W.  Johnson. 

Franconia David  H.  Applebee. 

Grafton Alanson  Walker. 

Groton Andrew  Remick. 

Hanover Elijah  B.  Hurlbutt. 

Henry  E.  Parker. 

Haverhill Samuel  B.  Page. 

Joseph  Powers. 

Hebron William  C.  Ross. 

Holderness Oliver  H .  P.  Craig. 

Landaff John  C.  Atwood. 

Lebanon Albert  M.  Shaw. 

John  L.  Spring. 
Francis  A.  Cushman. 
Nathan  B.  Stearns. 

Lisbon Joseph  Parker. 

Michael  M.  Stevens. 

Littleton Harry  Bingham. 

Cyrus  Eastman. 
John  Farr. 

Lyme George  F.  Sawtell. 

Lyman Herbert  B.  Moulton. 

Monroe Larkin  Hastings. 

Orange Ora  H.  Heath. 

Orford Charles  W.  Pierce. 

Piermont Aaron  P.  Gould. 

Plymouth Joseph  Burrows. 

Nathan  H.  Weeks. 

Thornton Albert  Lyford. 

Warren George  F.  Putnam. 

Waterville Merrill  Greeley. 

Wentworth Jeremiah  Blodgett. 

Woodstock  &  Lincoln Arthur  Hunt. 


14  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

CObS  COUNTY. 

Berlin Horace  C.  Sawyer. 

Clarksville Josiah  Young. 

Colebrook Hasen  Bedel. 

Frank  Aldrich. 

Columbia Samuel  M.  Harvey. 

Dalton Bert  A.  Taylor. 

Dummer Isaac  C.  Wight. 

Errol John  Akers. 

Gorham Benjamin  F.  Howard. 

Jefferson Nathan  R.  Perkins. 

Lancaster Jacob  Benton. 

William  Burns. 

Milan Adams  Twitchell. 

Northumberland Robert  Atkinson. 

Pittsburg David  Blanchard. 

Randolph George  Wood. 

Shelburne Hiram  T.  Cummings. 

Stark Joseph  A.  Pike. 

Stewartstown Edwin  W.  Drew. 

Stratford George  R.  Eaton. 

Whitefield Alson  L.  Brown. 

Moses  H.  Gordon. 


Mr.  Poore  of  Derry  said  it  was  customary  for  such  bodies  as 
this  to  be  sworn  before  acting,  and  therefore  he  moved  that  the 
delegates  be  sworn. 

Mr.  Mason  of  Moultonborough  hoped  that  the  convention 
would  dispense  with  that  form.  It  seemed  to  him  to  be  entirely 
idle,  especially  when  members  did  not  know  what  they  were 
going  to  swear  to.  They  came  simply  to  frame  a  constitution 
which  would  be  acceptable  to  the  people,  and,  when  they  had 
done  that,  he  thought  the  people  would  be  satisfied. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord,  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Derry  was  laid  on  the  table. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Mason  of  Moultonborough,  the  following 
resolution  was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  we  proceed  to  ballot  for  president  of  the 
convention. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  1 5 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Slayton  of  Manchester,  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  the  chair  appoint  five  tellers,  to  receive,  sort, 
and  count  the  votes. 

The  chair  appointed  as  tellers,  Messrs.  Slayton  of  Manches- 
ter, Mason  of  Moultonborough,  G.  W.  Burleigh  of  Somers- 
worth,  Frink  of  Greenland,  Putnam  of  Warren. 

The  first  ballot  for  president  resulted  as  follows  : 

Whole  number  of  ballots  cast 34§ 

Necessary  to  a  choice 175 

Samuel  M.  Wheeler  had 

John  M.  Shirley  had 

William  Burns  had 

Francis  A.  Faulkner  had 

Jacob  H.  Gallinger  had 

George  F.  Putnam  had 2 

Daniel  Marcy  had 6 

Gilman  Marston  had 13 

Jonathan  E.  Sargent  had 88 

William  H.  Y.  Hackett  had 100 

Daniel  Clark 134 

and  there  was  no  choice. 

The  convention  proceeded  to  a  second  ballot,  with  the  fol- 
lowing result : 

Whole  number  of  ballots  cast 339 

Necessary  to  a  choice I7° 

Gilman  Marston  had l 

Nehemiah  G.  Ordway  had 1 

John  M.  Shirley  had 2 

Jonathan  E.  Sargent  had 39 

William  H.  Y.  Hackett 112 

Daniel  Clark 1S4 

and  Daniel  Clark,  having  received  a  majority  of  all  the  ballots 
cast,  was  declared  elected  president  of  the  convention. 

Messrs.  Sargent  of  Concord  and  Marcy  of  Portsmouth  were 
appointed  to  conduct  the  president-elect  to  the  chair. 


1 6  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

Upon  assuming  the  chair,  the  president  addressed  the  con- 
vention as  follows : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention : 

Accept  my  acknowledgment  for  this  manifestation  of  your 
kindness.  I  do  not  apprehend  any  great  difficulty  in  presiding 
over  your  deliberations,  for  such  is  the  composition  of  this 
body  that  it  will  be  "  a  law  unto  itself."  The  most  that  I  shall 
have  to  do  will  be  to  conduct  the  business  with  promptness 
and  in  order,  and  if  I  fail  in  any  particular,  gentlemen,  I  know 
I  shall  have  your  assistance  and  your  forbearance.  The  duty 
which  has  been  assigned  to  us — the  amending  of  the  constitu- 
tion— is  one  of  great  delicacy,  and  requiring  great  unanimity 
and  wise  consideration.  The  constitution  of  New  Hampshire 
was  adopted  in  1792.  It  is  an  ancient  document.  Some  of  its 
provisions  are  obsolete,  but  most  of  them  were  wise  in  their 
day  and  generation,  and  they  are  wise  to-day.  Its  framers  were 
men  of  great  experience  and  far-reaching  forecast.  They  assert- 
ed in  that  constitution  the  grand  doctrine  of  the  political  equal- 
ity of  man,  and  of  his  right  to  govern  himself.  They  asserted 
in  it  the  inalienable  rights  of  conscience,  and  they  declared  the 
liberty  of  the  press.  The  people  of  this  state  have  been 
attached  to  that  constitution  :  they  are  attached  to  it  to-day. 
They  have  rejected  almost  every  proposed  amendment  to  it, 
and  unless  the  amendments  that  are  proposed  shall  commend 
themselves  to  that  people  by  their  necessity  and  by  their  wis- 
dom, they  will  reject  them  with  decision,  if  not  with  scorn. 
We  are  assembled  here,  gentlemen,  of  both  the  great  political 
parties.  Neither  party  is  strong  enough  to  carry  any  amend- 
ment with  the  people  alone.  If  anything  is  to  be  accomplished, 
it  must  be  done  by  harmonious  action.  Neither  would  it  be 
well,  gentlemen,  if  we  could  by  one  party  carry  amendments 
to  the  constitution,  that  it  should  be  so.  The  organic  law  of  a 
state  ought  to  be  adopted  by  the  unanimous  action  of  the  whole 
people,  if  possible.  Written  constitutions,  founded  upon  the 
passions  of  a  party  or  the  division  of  parties,  have  been  as 
evanescent  as  the  will  of  that  party.  I  regard  it  as  one  of  the 
proudest  things  in  the  history  of  New  Hampshire  that  her  peo- 
ple have  clung  to  that  constitution  with  the  tenacity  that  they 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  iy 

have  clung  to  it.  I  know  they  will  cling  to  it  in  the  future, 
and,  as  I  said,  whatever  is  done  hy  us  must  be  done  by 
almost  unanimous  wisdom.  Commending,  then,  gentlemen, 
to  you  the  work  that  you  have  in  your  hands,  hoping  that 
it  will  be  done  wisely,  but  promptly,  I  trust  that  we  shall 
finish  it,  and  return  to  our  constituencies  at  as  early  a  day 
as  possible.  Again  thanking  you,  gentlemen,  for  your  kind- 
ness, I  await  the  action  of  the  convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sinclair  of  Bethlehem,  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  twenty,  to  consist  of  two  from 
each  county,  be  appointed  by  the  chair  to  select  and  report  to 
the  convention  the  names  of  persons  to  fill  the  offices  of  secre- 
tary, assistant  secretary,  sergeant-at-arms,  chaplain,  and  three 
door-keepers,  for  the  session. 

The  president  appointed  the  following  gentlemen  as  such 
committee  : 

Messrs.  Sinclair  of  Bethlehem,  Spring  of  Lebanon,  Clark  of 
Atkinson,  Marcy  of  Portsmouth,  Woodman  of  Somersworth, 
Wheeler  of  Dover,  Whipple  of  Laconia,  Dickerman  of  New 
Hampton,  Carter  of  Ossipee,  Hubbard  of  Tamworth,  Gage  of 
Boscawen,  Gallinger  of  Concord,  Ramsdell  of  Nashua,  Jame- 
son of  Antrim,  Amidon  of  Hinsdale,  Jackson  of  Chesterfield, 
Hall  of  Croydon,  Adams  of  Springfield,  Benton  of  Lancaster, 
Sawyer  of  Berlin. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Mason  of  Moultonborough,  the  following 
resolution  was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  the  rules  of  the  House  of  Representatives  be 
adopted  as  the  rules  of  this  convention  until  otherwise  ordered. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter,  the  following  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  the  vote  adopting  the  rules  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  as  the  rules  of  this  convention  be  reconsidered. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter  moved  that  the  rules  of  the  conven- 
tion of  1850  be  substituted  instead. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  W.  H.  Y.  Hackett  of  Portsmouth,  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  was  adopted  : 
2 


I 8  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

Resolved,  That  the  whole  matter  be  referred  to  a  committee 
of  five,  to  be  appointed  by  the  chair. 

The  President  appointed  the  following  gentlemen  as  such 
committee  :  Messrs.  Marston  of  Exeter,  Mason  of  Moultonbor- 
ough,  Sargent  of  Concord,  Faulkner  of  Keene,  Cooledge  of 
Hillsborough. 

Mr.  Sinclair,  for  the  committee  on  permanent  organization, 
reported,  recommending  the  following  named  gentlemen  for 
the  several  offices,  and  the  report  was  accepted  and  adopted. 

Secretary,  Thomas  J.  Smith  of  Dover. 
Assistant  Secretary,  Alpheus  W.  Baker  of  Lebanon. 
Sergeant-at-Arms,  Atherton  W.  Quint  of  Manchester. 
Doorkeepers,  Willard   H.  Presby  of  Bethlehem,   Clark  H. 
Rowell  of  Keene,  Charles  E.  Cummings  of  Concord. 
Chaplain,  Rev.  Leander  S.  Coan  of  Alton. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover  moved  that  George  J.  Manson  be  em- 
ployed as  official  reporter  of  this  convention. 

Mr.  Wheeler  said,  in  regard  to  the  question  of  having  an 
official  reporter  for  the  convention,  that  he  was  not  prepared 
to  discuss  the  motion,  neither,  perhaps,  would  he  do  so,  but 
would  prefer  that  each  gentleman  should  express  his  mind  in 
regard  to  it.  For  the  purpose  of  testing  the  sense  of  the  con- 
vention, he  had  moved  that  George  J.  Manson  of  Concord  be 
appointed  official  reporter  for  the  convention.  Mr.  Manson 
was  a  man  of  very  large  experience,  and  often  acted  as  official 
reporter  for  the  courts  of  the  state,  and  he  presumed  his  supe- 
rior could  not  be  found.  Mr.  Frederick  Smyth  of  Manchester 
said  he  would  second  the  motion.  He  knew  the  gentleman, 
Mr.  Manson,  very  well,  and  he  knew  that  he  was  well  quali- 
fied for  the  position ;  he  also  believed  that  the  motion  should 
pass,  and  for  that  reason  he  should  support  it. 

Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord  moved  to  amend,  by  adding,  after 
the  word  convention,  the  words  "and  that  he  be  allowed  a 
compensation  of  five  dollars  a  day,"  which  amendment  was 
adopted,  and  the  motion  as  amended  was  passed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Walker  of  Claremont,  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted : 


CONSTITUTIONAL   CONVENTION. 


19 


Resolved,  That  the  hours  of  the  meeting  of  the  convention 
be  at  ten  o'clock  in  the  forenoon,  and  two  o'clock  in  the  after- 
noon. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Shirley  of  Antlover,  the  following  resolu- 
tions were  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  there  be  a  committee  on  the  county  expenses 
of  trials,  in  small  cases  ;  that  said  committee  ascertain  and  re- 
port, as  soon  as  may  be,  the  average  annual  amount  of  county 
expenses  occasioned  during  the  last  twenty  years  by  the  pres- 
ent methods  of  trying  civil  cases  in  which  the  amount  in  con- 
troversy does  not  exceed  $300 ;  what  proportion  the  whole 
amount  in  controversy,  in  such  cases,  bears  to  the  public  expense 
of  trying  them  ;  and  whether  any  alteration  of  the  Constitution 
is  necessary  to  enable  the  legislature  to  reduce  that  expense  by 
providing,  for  the  trial  of  small  civil  cases,  efficient,  expeditious, 
and  just  methods,  less  expensive  than  those  now  in  use. 

Resolved,  That  said  committee  consist  of  one  from  each 
county,  appointed  by  the  chair  ;  that  said  committee  is  author- 
ized to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  such  evidence  as 
will  furnish  the  information  sought  by  the  foregoing  resolution  ; 
and  that  if  such  information,  of  an  exact  and  mathematical 
character,  cannot  be  easily  and  speedily  obtained,  the  com- 
mittee report  such  general  information  and  approximate  re- 
sults on  the  subject  as  can  be  readily  procured  in  a  short  time. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Jameson  of  Antrim,  the  following  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  the  delegates  draw  their  seats  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner  introduced  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  the  delegates  to  the  consti- 
tutional convention  here  assembled,  that  instead  of  a  per  diem 
allowance,  each  member  be  paid  the  sum  of  thirty-seven  dollars 
and  fifty  cents,  without  regard  to  the  number  of  days  that  the 
convention  remains  in  session, — provided,  however,  that  mem- 
bers serving  upon  committees,  who  are  required  to  remain  at 
the  capital  when  the  convention  is  not  in  session  (or  when  it  has 


20  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

taken  a  recess) ,  be  paid  the  further  sum  of  three  dollars  for  each 
day  which  they  are  thus  detained  ;  and  that,  instead  of  mileage, 
each  member  be  paid  his  actual  cash  travelling  expenses  for 
two  journeys,  provided  he  makes  them  during  the  session,  from 
his  home  to  the  capital  and  return. 

By  motion  of  Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester,  the  resolution  was 
laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Spring  of  Lebanon  introduced  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  one  from  each  county  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  president  of  the  convention  to  consider  and 
report  as  to  the  best  mode  of  proceeding  to  the  revision  of  the 
Constitution. 

On  motion  of  W.  H.  Y.  Hackett  of  Portsmouth,  the  same 
was  referred  to  the  committee  on  rules. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter  introduced  the  following  resolution  : 

Whereas,  By  the  14th  article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  "Every 
subject  of  this  state  is  entitled  to  a  certain  remedy,  by  having 
recourse  to  the  laws,  for  all  injuries  he  may  receive  in  his  per- 
son, property,  or  character  ;  to  obtain  right  and  justice  freely, 
without  being  obliged  to  purchase  it ;  completely,  and  without 
any  denial ;  promptly,  and  without  any  delay  ;  conformably  to 
the  laws  ;"  and  Whereas,  It  is  essential  to  the  full  enjoyment 
of  the  rights  guaranteed  by  this  article,  and  the  interests  of  liti- 
gants and  of  the  people  generally  imperatively  demand,  that  the 
legislature  should  have  power  to  establish  tribunals  for  the  trial 
of  small  causes  in  a  more  expeditious  and  less  expensive  man- 
ner than  now  obtains  :  therefore,  Resolved,  That  Article  20  of 
the  Bill  of  Rights  be  amended,  by  inserting  after  the  word 
"practised"  the  following  words,  to  wit,  "and  except  in  cases  in 
which  the  value  in  controversy  does  not  exceed  one  hundred 
dollars,  and  title  of  real  estate  is  not  concerned  ;"  and  that  Article 
77  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution  be  amended  by  striking 
out  all  after  the  words  "  other  court,"  to  wit,  the  following 
words,  "  so  that  a  trial  by  jury,  in  the  last  resort,  may  be  had." 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  laid  on 
the  table. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  21 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster,  the  convention  ad- 
journed. 

Attest:        C.  C.  DANFORTH,  Temporary  Secretary. 


THURSDAY,  December  7,  1S76. 

Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  president  in  the  chair). 

In  the  absence  of  the  chaplain,  prayer  was  offered  by  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Spaulding,  a  member  from  Dover. 

The  journal  of  yesterday  was  read  and  approved. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover,  ordered  that  the  oath 
of  officers  be  administered  to  the  secretary,  assistant  secretary, 
and  official  reporter  of  the  convention,  before  they  assume  the 
duties  of  their  respective  offices. 

Thereupon  Thomas  J.  Smith,  Alpheus  W.  Baker,  and  George 
J.  Manson,  respectively  secretary,  assistant  secretary,  and  offi- 
cial reporter,  elect,  appeared,  signified  their  acceptance  of  their 
respective  offices,  and  severally  were  duly  sworn  to  the  faithful 
discharge  of  the  duties  thereof. 

Mr.  McDuffee  of  Rochester  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

Resolved,  That  the  work  of  this  convention  be  limited  to  the 
following  subjects : 

1st.  To  diminish  the  number  of  members  of  the  House  of 
Representatives. 

2d.  To  increase  the  number  of  members  of  the  Senate. 

3d.  To  abolish  all  religious  tests  as  a  qualification  for  office. 

4th.  To  make  provisions  for  future  amendments  of  the  Con- 
stitution. 

And  the  same  was  laid  on  the  table,  on  motion  of  Mr.  W.  H. 
Y.  Hackett  of  Portsmouth. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover  introduced  the  following  resolution  : 


22  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  to  amend  the  Constitution  in 
the  several  particulars  following  : 

ist.  To  strike  out  the  religious  test. 

2d.  To  provide  for  biennial  elections. 

3d.  To  provide  for  biennial  sessions  of  the  legislature. 

4th.  To  change  the  time  of  election. 

5th.  To  provide  that  the  legislature  shall  convene  on  the 
third  Tuesday  of  May. 

6th.  To  provide  that  the  compensation  of  members  of  the 
legislature  shall  be  by  salary  and  mileage. 

7th.  To  provide  for  reducing  the  number  of  the  members 
of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

8th.  To  provide  for  an  increase  of  the  number  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Senate. 

9th.  To  abolish  the  Council. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  My  object  in  introducing  this  resolution  was 
to  bring  certain  matters  which  are  agitated  at  once  before  the 
convention,  and  my  design  was  that  these  propositions  should 
be  taken  up  separately,  and  acted  upon.  Such  as  are  rejected 
now  will  be  considered  as  finally  rejected  by  this  convention. 
Such  as  are  adopted  might  be  referred  to  the  appropriate  com- 
mittee or  committees  appointed  for  that  purpose.  I  am  in  no 
wise  strenuous  in  regard  to  the  passage  of  the  resolution,  and 
only  offer  it  with  a  view  of  trying  to  do  my  mite  towards  facili- 
tating the  proceedings  of  this  convention,  that  we  may  adjourn 
at  an  early  day. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  W.  H.  Y.  Hackett  of  Portsmouth,  the 
resolution  was  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord,  for  the  committee  on  rules,  reported 
the  following,  and  recommended  their  adoption : 

RULES. 

1.  The  president  shall  take  the  chair  at  precisely  the  hour 
to  which  the  convention  shall  have  adjourned,  shall  immedi- 
ately call  the  members  to  order,  and  at  the  commencement  of 
each  day's  session  shall  cause  the  journal  of  the  preceding  day 
to  be  read.  He  shall  preserve  decorum  and  order,  and  may 
speak  on  points  of  order  in  preference  to  other  members,  and 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  23 

may  substitute  any  member  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  chair, 
such  substitution  not  to  extend  beyond  an  adjournment. 

2.  All  committees  shall  be  appointed  by  the  president,  unless 
otherwise  directed  by  the  convention ;  and  the  first  named 
member  of  any  committee  appointed  by  the  president  shall  be 
chairman. 

3.  No  person  but  the  members  and  officers  of  the  convention 
shall  be  admitted  within  the  chamber,  unless  by  invitation  of 
the  president  or  some  member  of  the  convention. 

4.  No  member  shall  speak  more  than  twice  to  the  same 
question  without  leave  of  the  convention. 

5.  When  any  question  is  under  debate,  no  motion  shall  be 
received  but,  1st,  to  adjourn;  2d,  to  lie  on  the  table;  3d,  to 
postpone  to  a  day  certain;  4th,  to  commit;  5th,  to  amend, — 
which  several  motions  shall  take  precedence  in  the  order  in 
which  they  are  arranged.  Motions  to  adjourn  and  lie  on  the 
table  shall  be  decided  without  debate. 

6.  Any  member  may  call  for  a  division  of  the  question,  when 
the  sense  will  admit  of  it ;  but  a  motion  to  strike  out  and  insert 
shall  not  be  divided. 

7.  A  motion  for  commitment,  until  it  is  decided,  shall  pre- 
cede all  amendments  to  the  main  question  ;  and  all  motions 
and  reports  may  be  committed  at  the  pleasure  of  the  conven- 
tion. 

8.  No  vote  shall  be  reconsidered  unless  the  motion  for  recon- 
sideration be  made  by  a  member  who  voted  with  the  majority. 

9.  Every  question  shall  be  decided  by  yeas  and  nays,  when- 
ever a  demand  for  the  same  shall  be  made  and  sustained  by  at 
least  ten  members. 

10.  The  convention  may  resolve  itself  into  a  committee  of 
the  whole  convention,  at  anytime,  on  the  motion  of  a  member; 
and,  in  forming  a  committee  of  the  whole,  the  president  shall 
leave  the  chair,  and  appoint  a  chairman  to  preside  in  com- 
mittee ;  and  the  rules  of  proceeding  in  convention,  and  the 
rule  relating  to  calls  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  shall  be  observed  in 


24  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

committee  of  the    whole,    except  the  rule  limiting  the   times 
of  speaking. 

ii.  After  the  journal  has  been  read  and  corrected,  the  order 
of  business  shall  be  as  follows,  viz.,  ist,  the  presentation  of 
resolutions  and  petitions ;  ad,  the  reports  of  committees ;  3d, 
the  unfinished  business  of  the  preceding  day. 

Which  report  was  accepted,  and  rules  adopted  as  the  rules  of 
the  convention. 

The  following  resolution,  introduced  by  Mr.  Poor  of  Deny, 
was  laid  on  the  table,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster. 

Resolved,  That  all  resolutions  proposing  amendments  to  the 
Constitution  be  laid  on  the  table,  and  be  printed  for  the  use  of 
the  members. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Farmington  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  by 
which  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Derry  was  laid  on 
the  table. 

Mr.  Eastman  said  he  desired  to  see  in  print  what  was  pro- 
posed for  amendments,  that  he  might  consider  them  ;  and  when 
he  spoke  for  himself,  he  thought  he  spoke  for  two  thirds  of  the 
members  of  the  convention. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter  suggested  that  the  gentleman  from 
Farmington  should  withdraw  his  motion,  and  wait  until  the 
committee  has  reported  what  they  think  would  be  the  proper 
mode  of  proceeding. 

Whereupon  the  motion  to  reconsider  was  withdrawn. 

The  following  resolution,  introduced  by  Mr.  Slayton  of  Man- 
chester, was  laid  on  the  table  on  motion  of  Mr.  Mason  of 
Moultonborough. 

Resolved,  That  the  secretary  be  instructed  to  procure,  for  the 
use  of  the  delegates  and  officers  of  the  convention,  375  copies 
each  of  the  Daily  Monitor,  Daily  Patriot,  and  People  Hand 
Book  for  1876-77,  and  that  the  publishers  of  the  papers  named 
be  requested  to  print  the  rules  adopted  to-day,  in  to-morrow's 
issue. 

The  credentials  of  George  H.  Adams,  member  elect  from 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  2$ 

the  town  of  Campton,  were  presented,  and  Mr.  Adams  took 
seat  in  the  convention. 

Mr.  Jameson  of  Antrim  moved  that  the  convention  now 
proceed  to  draw  seats. 

Mr.  Badger  of  Concord  moved  to  amend  by  adding  the  fol- 
lowing :  "and  that  all  gentlemen  who  were  members  of  the 
last  convention  have  liberty  to  select  seats  previous  to  the 
drawing." 

Mr.  Tilton  of  Derry  moved  to  further  amend  by  adding, 
"and  all  persons  who  are  deaf  shall  be  so  allowed  to  draw 
seats." 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Barton  of  Newport,  the  whole  subject 
was  indefinitely  postponed. 

Mr.  Hastings  of  Monroe  introduced  the  following  resolution  : 

Whereas,  It  is  advisable  that  there  should  be  some  less  ex- 
pensive mode  adopted  to  revise  and  amend  the  Constitution  than 
now  exists  ;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  at  the  expiration  of  every  six  years,  there 
shall  be  a  joint  committee  of  the  legislature,  consisting  of  two 
from  the  Senate  and  two  from  each  county  of  the  House,  to 
propose  alterations  and  amendments  to  the  Constitution  ;  and 
the  alterations  and  amendments  proposed  by  said  committee,  if 
any,  shall  be  laid  before  the  towns  and  unincorporated  places, 
and  if  approved  by  two  thirds  of  the  qualified  voters  present 
and  voting,  then  the  Constitution  shall  be  so  amended. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Eastman  of  Farmington,  the  resolution 
was  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Hastings  of  Monroe  introduced  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  all  the  amendments  proposed  to  the  Consti- 
tution by  this  convention  shall  be  disposed  of  in  the  committee 
of  the  whole. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Tilton  of  Derry,  the  resolution  was  laid  on 
the  table. 

Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  pro- 
viding for  the  employment  of  an  official  reporter. 


26  JOURNAL   OF  THE 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sanborn  of  Franklin,  the  whole  subject 
was  referred  to  a  special  committee  of  five,  to  be  appointed  by 
the  chair. 

Mr.  Gallinger  said,  in  support  of  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin,  that  there  was  a  misapprehension  in  his  mind 
in  regard  to  the  duties  of  that  officer,  and,  upon  consultation  with 
the  reporter  and  other  gentlemen  who  were  qualified  to  judge, 
he  was  satisfied  that  some  different  disposition  should  be  made 
of  the  matter. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Slayton  of  Manchester,  the  vote  whereby 
the  motion  relating  to  the  drawing  of  seats  was  indefinitely 
postponed  was  reconsidei'ed  ;  whereupon  Mr.  Tilton  of  Derry, 
by  unanimous  consent,  withdrew  the  amendment  introduced  by 
him  ;  and  thereupon,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua, 
the  convention  proceeded,  under  the  direction  of  the  sergeant- 
at-arms,  to  draw  seats  according  to  the  custom  of  the  House  of 
Representatives. 

The  president  appointed  the  committee  on  the  subject  of  the 
official  reporter,  as  follows:  Messrs.  Sanborn  of  Franklin,  Page 
of  Haverhill,  Gallinger  of  Concord,  Martin  of  Keene,  Wheeler 
of  Dover ;  —  and  also  the  committee  on  resolutions  of  Mr. 
Shirley  of  Andover,  relating  to  the  trial  of  causes  where  a  small 
amount  in  damages  is  involved,  as  follows  :  Messrs.  Marston  of 
Exeter,  Wallingford  of  Dover,  Tuttle  of  Meredith,  Sanborn  of 
Wakefield,  Shirley  of  Andover,  Smyth  of  Ward  2  in  Manches- 
ter, Parker  of  Fitzwilliam,  Richards  of  Newport,  Burrows  of 
Plymouth,  Bedel  of  Colebrook. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concoi-d,  for  the  committee  on  rules  and 
methods  of  procedure,  reported  the  following  resolution,  which 
was  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  this  convention  will  proceed  to  revise  the 
present  Constitution  of  the  state  by  considering  it  as  in  com- 
mittee of  the  whole,  till  gone  through  with  under  consecutive 
and  separate  heads,  and  by  sending  to  special  and  appropriate 
committees,  from  time  to  time,  such  amendments  as  may  be 
adopted  by  the  convention  ;  that  there  shall  be  appointed  four 
separate  committees,  by  the  president,  consisting  of  two  mem- 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  2J 

bers  from  each  county,  which  shall  be  committees  on  the  fol- 
lowing subjects,  viz. : 

i.  The  Bill  of  Rights,  the  Executive  Department,  and  the 
Religious  Test. 

2.  The  Legislative  Department. 

3.  The  Judicial  Department. 

4.  Future  mode  of  amending  the  Constitution,  and  other  mis- 
cellaneous matters. 

These  committees  shall  consider  the  amendments  submitted 
to  them  by  the  convention,  and  put  the  same  in  proper  form,  and 
recommend  such  modifications  and  amendments  of  the  same  as 
they  may  deem  necessary. 

Mr.  Mason  of  Moultonborough  introduced  the  following  res- 
olutions : 

Resolved,  That  the  basis  of  representation  shall  be  upon  the 
ratable  polls. 

Resolved,  That  no  one  shall  be  considered  a  ratable  poll,  for 
the  purpose  of  voting  or  for  representation,  unless  he  shall  have 
resided  within  the  town  six  months  prior  to  the  election,  shall 
have  paid  a  poll-tax  in  the  town  where  he  resides  the  year  next 
preceding  the  election  (unless  seventy  years  of  age),  or  shall 
have  become  a  new  resident  in  the  town  six  months  prior  to 
the  election, — excepting  and  excluding  foreigners  and  non- 
naturalized  citizens. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter.  It  seems  to  me  the  adoption  of 
these  resolutions  would  be  inconsistent  with  what  the  conven- 
tion has  already  done.  There  is  no  committee  to  which  they 
could  properly  be  referred,  and  the  committees  provided  for  in 
the  resolution  as  to  the  mode  of  business  would  have  no  orig- 
inal jurisdiction.  The  convention  having  prescribed  the  mode 
in  which  the  business  shall  come  before  it,  and  how  it  shall  be 
done,  this  proposition  seems  to  me  to  be  not  in  order,  and  in- 
consistent with  what  has  already  been  done.  It  seems  to  me 
there  is  no  committee  to  which  it  could  be  referred,  unless  it  be 
the  committee  of  the  whole,  provided  for  in  the  resolution 
already  adopted. 


28  JOURNAL   OF  THE 

Mr.  Mason  of  Moultonborough.  I  supposed,  when  I  offered 
the  resolutions,  that  they  would  be  referred  to  a  committee,  and 
had  no  idea  that  the  convention  would  now  act  upon  them 
finally.  I  simply  desire  that  they  may  be  referred  to  the  proper 
committee. 

Mr.  Marston.  There  is  no  such  committee.  The  commit- 
tees provided  for  under  the  resolution  are  to  take  such  matters 
as  are  referred  to  them,  such  amendments  as  have  been  adopted 
by  the  committee  of  the  whole,  or  by  the  convention,  put  them 
into  form,  and  recommend  any  addition  or  change  which  they 
may  deem  necessary. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Eastman  of  Farmington,  the  resolutions 
were  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Ordvvay  of  Warner.  I  would  inquire  of  the  chair  what 
will  be  the  mode  of  proceeding  in  this  body  in  offering  proposi- 
tions in  committee  of  the  whole.  Under  the  rules  that  have 
been  adopted,  very  many  propositions,  I  fear,  would  fail  to 
receive  a  hearing,  or  attention. 

The  President.  The  ordinary  method  of  going  into  commit- 
tee of  the  whole  is  for  some  gentleman  of  the  body  to  move 
that  the  house  go  into  committee  of  the  whole,  for  the  purpose 
of  considering  a  specific  bill  or  amendment.  The  convention 
then  resolves  itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole,  and  the 
president  calls  some  gentleman  to  the  chair.  The  committee 
then  proceed  to  consider  the  subject.  They  may  finish  it  or 
not  finish  it.  If  they  do  not  finish  it,  they  will  rise,  report 
progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again.  If  they  finish  their  busi- 
ness in  committee,  they  report  their  action  to  the  body,  and 
then  it  comes  again  before  the  body  for  final  action.  It  will  be 
in  order,  in  committee  of  the  whole,  to  move  any  amendment 
to  any  proposition  or  resolution  that  may  be  under  considera- 
tion. I  understand  by  the  rule,  though  I  have  merely  heard  it 
read,  that  all  these  matters  are  to  be  considered  in  order  in 
committee  of  the  whole  ;  and  it  will  be  in  order,  when  any  mo- 
tion is  made  there,  to  move  to  amend  the  motion,  and  then  to 
make  progress,  and  report  as  we  proceed. 

Mr.  Ordway.    Do  I  understand  that  the  present  Constitution 
is  to  be  taken  up  ? 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  20, 

The  President.     I  understand,  by   the  rule,  that  it  is  to  be 
gone  through  with. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  In  the  committee,  we  proposed 
that  all  questions  that  came  before  the  convention  should  be 
referred  to  the  committee  of  the  whole  ; — and  not  only  that, 
but  that  the  Constitution  shall  be  taken  up  and  read,  so  that 
every  member  could  have  the  privilege,  if  he  desired,  of  moving 
any  amendment  he  might  choose.  The  idea  is,  that  the  Constitu- 
tion shall  be  taken  up  in  committee  of  the  whole,  shall  be  read 
and  acted  upon  article  by  article,  any  member  so  desiring  making 
suggestions.  Then  the  committee  will  decide  upon  such  ques- 
tion as  are  raised.  Then  it  is  provided  that  such  matters  as 
the  convention  shall  adopt  shall  be  sent  to  the  proper  commit- 
tees, that  the  committees  may  put  the  matter  in  form,  so  as  to 
see  there  is  no  clashing  in  the  various  provisions  made  by  the 
amendments ;  and  that  the  committee  shall  also  have  the  privi- 
lege of  recommending  such  modifications  and  amendments  to 
those  matters  which  are  committed  to  them  as  they  deem  nec- 
essary ;  but  the  committees  that  we  have  provided  for  are  not 
authorized  to  introduce  amendments  themselves,  or  introduce 
matter  outside  of  the  matters  which  are  submitted  to  them  by 
the  convention. 

Mr.  W.  H.  Y.  Hackett  of  Portsmouth  moved  to  reconsider 
the  vote  whereby  the  rules  of  the  convention  were  adopted. 

Mr.  Hackett.  In  my  view,  if  we  should  carry  out  the  pro- 
gramme as  detailed  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  we  shall 
need  more  than  the  $25,000  appropriated  for  our  labors  here  ; 
and  we  may  as  well  give  up  the  idea  of  doing  anything,  if  we 
fall  into  the  error  our  predecessors  did  a  quarter  of  a  century 
ago.  The  idea  of  taking  up  the  whole  Constitution,  consider- 
ing that  in  committee  of  the  whole,  and  then  referring  matters 
to  a  committee  to  be  reported  back  to  the  convention,  would, 
if  carried  out,  occupy  at  least  two  months.  It  seems  to  me,  a 
far  more  simple  and  effectual  method  of  reaching  the  object, 
and  reaching  it  in  a  proper  manner,  would  be  to  raise  a  com- 
mittee, say  of  two  from  each  county,  to  whom  all  matters 
should  be  referred,  allowing  the  convention  a  couple  of  days  to 
make  propositions  of  the  mode  or  manner  of  the  alterations. 


30  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

The  gentleman  from  Dover  [Mr.  Wheeler],  the  gentleman 
from  Rochester  [Mr.  McDufFee],  and  several  others,  have  made 
propositions.  I  would  give  every  member  of  this  convention 
an  opportunity,  during  the  period  of  two  or  three  days,  to  do 
that, — that  is,  of  making  any  proposition  to  modify  any  part  of 
the  Constitution.  I  would  not  go  into  discussion  of  these  sev- 
eral propositions  as  abstract  propositions,  without  any  reference 
to  their  bearing  on  the  instrument  when  you  get  them  into  the 
Constitution.  Instead  of  doing  that,  let  them  be  referred  to 
this  committee  of  twenty,  and  let  the  committee  then  take  those 
propositions,  compare  them  with  the  Constitution,  and  see  what 
would  be  the  practical  working  of  this  or  that  provision  when 
it  is  incorporated.  Let  us  go  away,  and  remain  a  week,  or  five 
days,  while  they  have  this  matter  under  consideration,  and  then 
let  this  committee  lay  the  whole  before  the  convention,  and 
then  we  should  be  prepared  understandingly  to  see  what  is 
proposed.  Then  there  would  be  some  prospect  of  reaching  a 
reasonable  result  within  a  proper  length  of  time.  But  if  we  are 
going  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  every  resolution  that  is 
brought  up,  and  members  here  discuss  them  both  in  and  out  of 
the  committee, — refer  them  to  a  committee  with  their  minds  all 
made  up,  one  way  or  the  other,  upon  a  mere  abstract  proposi- 
tion,— we  shall  end  in  doing  no  good  service  to  the  state. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  The  committee  supposed,  in  order 
to  proceed  to  revise  the  Constitution,  it  would  be  necessary,  as 
in  the  other  constitutional  convention,  that  the  Constitution 
should  be  read  ;  that  such  motions  and  amendments  as  were 
made  by  members  should  be  made  as  it  was  read.  Now,  our 
idea  was,  that  very  few  amendments  would  be  offered  to  the 
sections  as  they  were  read.  Take  the  Bill  of  Rights :  there 
have,  as  yet,  been  only  one  or  two  amendments  offered,  so  far 
as  I  remember,  to  that.  There  are  a  few  other  amendments 
offered,  on  other  subjects.  I  do  not  suppose  there  is  any  wish 
on  the  part  of  anybody  here  to  alter  a  great  deal,  but  in  order 
to  give  all  a  chance  to  offer  their  suggestions,  let  the  Constitu- 
tion be  read  through  in  the  manner  proposed,  and  such  amend- 
ments can  be  offered  as  are  desired.  We  can  do  it  in  three 
days,  in  the  way  proposed  by  the  committee,  and  save  consid- 
erable of  the  $25,000  appropriated  by  the  state. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  3 1 

Whereupon  the  motion  to  reconsider  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Mason  of  Moultonborough.  I  think  there  ought  to  be 
some  more  definite  understanding  in  relation  to  how  matters 
come  before  the  convention.     It  seems  to  me  very  proper. 

The  President.  The  chair  will  suggest  that  there  is  nothing 
before  the  convention.  The  gentleman  can  speak  by  unani- 
mous consent.  I  presume  that  the  gentleman  will  be  allowed 
to  go  on.  The  gentleman  will  proceed  ;  the  chair  hears  no 
objection. 

Mr.  Mason.  What  I  was  going  to  remark  was,  that  there 
are  amendments  lying  on  the  table,  that  go  to  the  committee 
of  the  whole.  I  wish  to  inquire,  if,  under  the  present  arrange- 
ment, a  matter  brought  before  the  convention  cannot  be 
brought  up,  before  the  committee  of  the  whole  resume  the 
consideration  of  that  part  of  the  Constitution  to  which  it 
refers. 

Mr.  President.  The  chair  means,  that  if  anything  is  offered 
in  the  convention,  it  must  lie  on  the  table  until  the  committee 
of  the  whole  are  in  session  on  that  branch  of  the  Constitution, 
and  then  go  to  the  committee  of  the  whole  ;  and  it  will  be  in 
order  to  offer  amendments  in  committee  of  the  whole,  just  as 
well  as  in  the  convention. 

Mr.  Hurlbutt  of  Hanover  moved  that  a  committee  be  ap- 
pointed to  read  the  Constitution,  article  by  article,  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  convention. 

Which  was  declared  out  of  order  by  the  chair. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter.  As  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from 
Concord  [Mr.  Sargent],  there  have  been,  I  think,  but  two 
amendments  suggested  by  anybody  to  the  Bill  of  Rights.  If 
we  went  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  Bill  of  Rights,  or 
any  subject,  for  a  few  minutes,  we  could  see  just  about  how 
the  proposition  would  work  ;  and  I  move  that  the  convention 
now  resolve  itself  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  Bill  of 
Rights. 

Which  motion  was  adopted. 

And  the  convention  resolved  itself   into  committee  of  the 


32  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

whole,  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  the 
Constitution. 

IN    COMMITTEE    OF    THE    WHOLE. 

(Mr.  Bingham  of  Littleton  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  I  move  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
the  clerk  now  proceed  to  read  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  our  Consti- 
tution,— first  the  whole  of  it,  and  then  taking  up  article  by 
article,  to  see  what  proposition  is  made  in  regard  to  it. 

Which  motion  was  adopted  ;  and  the  clerk  proceeded  to  read 
the  Bill  of  Rights  at  length,  and  then  Article  ist  a  second 
time. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter  said,  I  did  not  understand 
it  was  the  intention  of  anybody  that  any  action  should  be  taken 
on  any  article  unless  some  person  moved  to  amend  it,  but  that 
each  article  as  it  was  read  should  be  read  with  a  view  of  hav- 
ing it  amended,  if  thought  advisable. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  that  understanding  the  clerk  will  pro- 
ceed, giving  an  opportunity  at  the  close  of  each  article  for  any 
motion  to  be  made  as  to  that  article.  Whereupon  the  reading 
proceeded. 

Mr.  Hastings  of  Monroe  moved  to  strike  out  the  word 
"  Protestant,"  in  the  6th  Article. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  In  regard  to  the  word  "  Protes- 
tant" in  this  section,  it  has  been  decided  that  there  is  nothing 
in  this  provision  that  prevents  having  other  teachers  ;  that  the 
legislature  may  make  provision  for  Protestant  teachers, — yet 
it  is  held  that  there  is  nothing  implied  in  that  which  prevents 
their  making  societies  and  employing  any  other  teachers,  and 
paying  them.  But  the  whole  tenor  of  this  article  is,  that  all  de- 
nominations shall  stand  equal,  substantially,  before  the  law,  and 
that  all  religious  sects  and  all  denominations  of  Christians, — 
which  includes  the  Catholics,  for  they  are  Christians  as  well  as 
others,  for  they  believe  in  Jesus  Christ, — all  sects  of  Christians, 
shall  be  under  the  protection  of  the  law.  I  do  not  understand 
that  this  section  raises  the  question  as  to  the  religious  test.  I 
do  not  care  particularly  whether  it  is  stricken  out,  or  whether 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  33 

it  remains.  I  have  no  objection  to  its  remaining.  It  shows 
our  fathers  had  a  leaning  towards  Protestantism.  Although 
they  did  not  deny  anybody  else  the  same  privileges,  they  simply 
said  that  they  might  provide  for  Protestant  teachers;  but  they 
did  not  say  that  they  should  not  provide  for  any  other  and  dif- 
ferent kind  they  chose,  with  equal  rights.  That  is  the  construc- 
tion put  on  this  section  by  the  courts  of  this  state,  and,  I  think, 
does  not  raise  the  question  of  the  religious  test.  But,  if  it  is  the 
choice  of  the  convention  to  strike  it  out.  I  am  not  particular. 
I,  for  one,  would  just  as  soon  it  should  remain.  The  framers 
of  our  Constitution  were  at  least  considered  Protestants,  and 
we,  perhaps,  should  say  a  word  in  favor  of  Protestantism  in 
preference  to  any  other  religion  ;  yet  they  did  not  undertake  to 
confine  anybody  or  bind  anybody,  or  make  any  provision  for 
Protestants  that  Catholics  and  everybody  else  had  not  a  veal 
right  and  a  real  privilege  to  make  for  themselves  ; — and  I  un- 
derstand that  to  be  the  construction  that  has  been  put  upon  this 
passage.  Therefore,  I  do  not  understand  that  it  has  anything 
to  do  with  the  religious  test ;  but,  as  to  its  remaining  in  or 
going  out,  I  have  no  particular  choice. 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth.  It  seems  to  me  the  question 
before  the  committee  is,  if  the  word  does  not  do  any  good,  or 
hurt,  then  there  can  be  no  harm  in  striking  it  out, — which  will 
show  somewhat  of  liberality,  and  will,  perhaps,  lead  to  the 
main  article.  It  occurs  to  me  that  it  should  be  stricken  out, 
and  then  we  should  all  know  there  can  be  no  question  about  it. 

Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord.  A  single  word.  I  favor  the 
striking  out  of  that  word  "  Protestant,"  for  the  reason  that  I 
think  it  establishes  a  state  religion — something  that  I  certainly 
do  not  believe  in.  And  I  really  think  there  is  an  inconsistency 
in  the  language  we  have  in  these  articles.  We  have,  in  Article 
4,  a  declaration  that  the  rights  of  conscience  are  inalienable  ; 
wTe  have,  in  Article  6,  a  statement  that  our  public  teachers 
must  all  be  Protestant  who  arc  recognized  by  our  legislature  in 
a  certain  way;  and  then,  in  the  closing  or  in  the  subsequent 
clause  in  that  article  we  have  the  statement  made,  that  no  one 
sect  shall  be  subject  to  another  sect.  Now  it  seems  to  me 
there  is  a  glaring  inconsistency  in  this  statement.  If  the  rights 
3 


34  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

of  conscience  are  inalienable, — if  no  one  sect  shall  be  subject 
to  another  sect, — why,  then,  make  this  provision  in  our  Bill  of 
Rights? — and  that  does,  in  my  judgment,  interfere  to  a  certain 
extent  with  the  rights  of  conscience.  I  am  opposed  to  state 
religion  as  I  am  opposed  to  state  medicine.  I  am  opposed  to 
the  state  recognizing  any  system  of  any  belief;  and  for  that  rea- 
son, if  for  no  other,  I  shall  certainly  vote  to  strike  out  the  word 
"  Protestant"  from  that  clause  in  our  Bill  of  Rights  ;  and  I  trust 
that  the  motion  will  prevail. 

Upon  the  question  being  stated,  Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester 
called  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Hastings  withdrew  the  motion,  and  the 
same  was  renewed  by  Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth. 

Mr.  Clark  withdrew  his  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

And  the  amendment  was  adopted,  a  call  for  a  division  by 
Mr.  Pierce  of  Orford  being  made  and  withdrawn. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Walker  of  Claremont,  the  committee  arose, 
reported  progress,  and  asked  leave  to  sit  again. 

IN    CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Bingham,  chairman  of  the  committee  of  the  whole,  re- 
ported that  the  committee  had  had  under  consideration  the  Bill 
of  Rights  of  the  Constitution,  and  proposed  to  strike  out  the 
word  "  Protestant,"  in  the  6th  Article,  and  asked  leave  to  sit 
again. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Cram  of  Hampton  Falls,  the  convention 
adjourned. 

AFTERNOON. 

Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Pitman  of  Bartlett,  the  resolution  in  regard 
to  papers  for  members  was  taken  from  the  table  and  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Mason  of  Moultonborough,  the  convention 
resolved  itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  Bill  of 
Rights  of  the  Constitution. 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  35 

THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE. 

(Mr.  Bingham  of  Littleton  in  the  chair). 
Mr.  Sturoc  of  Sunapee  introduced  the  following  resolution: 
Resolved,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  c  nv  ntion,  that  all 
of  Article  6  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  he  struck  out,  except  the  fol- 
lowing:  "Every  denomination  of  Christians,  demeaning  them- 
selves quietly  and  as  good  subjects  of  the  state,  shall  be  equally 
under  the  protection  of  the  law  ;  and  no  subordination  of  any 
one  sect  or  denomination  to  another  shall  ever  be  established 
by  law." 

Mr.  Sturoc.  At  this  stage  of  the  proceedings  of  this  conven- 
tion, or  at  any  stage,  I  would  be  the  last  man  on  this  floor  to 
introduce  any  subject-matter  calculated  to  make  "confusion 
worse  confounded."  If  the  proposition  I  have  offered  be  con- 
sidered too  sweeping  and  radical,  I  will  bow  to  the  decision  of 
this  convention  ;  but  I  want  to  suggest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the 
opening  portion  of  this  article,  which  can  be  read  by  every 
member  of  this  convention,  is  substantially,  if  not  in  words,  in- 
corporated in  some  other  article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  that 
all  we  need  to  preserve  is  that  which  contains  the  gist  of  the 
article.  I  do  not  propose  to  introduce  anything  new  ; — I  have 
taken  simply  the  language  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution, 
leaving  out  that  which  has  become  superseded  by  time, — that 
which  referred  to  contracts,  perhaps,  existing  at  the  time  of  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution.  I  believe  that  the  soul  of  the 
thing  aimed  at  should  be  clearly  stated,  whether  it  is  in  the 
announcement  of  these  fundamental  radical  principles,  as  in  the 
Bill  of  Rights,  or  whether  it  is  in  the  provisions  of  the  other 
portions  of  our  Constitution,  in  regard  to  the  working  of  our 
system.  I  believe  it  is  best  to  be  short ;  and  the  gist  of  the 
article,  you  will  find,  is  retained  in  the  resolution  which  I  pre- 
sent. The  simple  object  I  have  in  view  is  to  strip  away  all 
that  has  become  positively  obsolete,  and  that  is  simple  repe- 
tition of  some  other  part  of  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  I  would  s  ggest  to  the  gentleman 
that  he  put  in  a  motion  to  amend.  It  is  not  in  order  to  intro- 
duce an  independent  resolution  in  committee  of  the  whole.  The 
resolution  had  better  come  in  the  form  of  a  motion  to  amend. 


36  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

Mr.  Sturoc.  I  will  not,  Mr.  Chairman,  stop  at  the  present 
moment  to  discuss  parliamentary  technicalities  with  the  re- 
spected President  of  the  convention,  but  will  simply  say  that 
the  resolution  can  be  amended  to  conform  to  the  suggestion 
made  by  Judge  Clark. 

Mr. Walker  of  Claremont.  Does  the  gentleman  [Mr.  Sturoc] 
intend  that  all  denominations  shall  stand  on  an  equality  before 
the  law?  I  see  his  resolution  is  worded,  "all  Christian  denomi- 
nations." I  do  not  know  how  it  is  in  this  state,  but  there 
may  be  some  Jews,  and  I  suppose  they  ought  to  stand  on  an 
equality  before  the  law. 

Mr.  Sturoc.  I  will  say  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  gentleman, 
if  he  is  objecting  to  the  langunge  of  my  resolution,  it  is  simply 
following  that  of  Article  6  ;  if  I  am  in  fault  in  the  resolution, 
so  were  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  at  fault  in  using  the 
word  "  Christian."  I  did  not  propose  to  obliterate  that  word. 
I  do  not  now. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  It  would  seem,  as  this  is  a  matter 
which  calls  for  some  consideration,  that  the  proper  course  to 
pursue  would  be  to  refer  it  to  a  special  committee,  or  some  com- 
mittee which  may  be  appointed  hereafter.  Whether  a  motion 
while  we  are  in  committee,  to  that  effect,  would  be  proper,  I 
am  not  advised ;  if  it  is  proper,  I  will  make  that  motion,  that 
it  be  referred  to  a  special  committee. 

The  Chairman.     The  motion  is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  It  strikes  me  the  difficulty  sug- 
gested by  the  gentlemen  from  Claremont  might  be  obviated. 
The  amendment  leaves  the  matter  just  as  it  is,  and,  if  every- 
thing else  is  to  be  cut  off",  why  not  strike  out  the  whole  of  Sec- 
tion 6,  and  insert  instead  thereof,  "  every  religious  sect  and 
every  denomination  of  Christians,"  and  then  follow  through  the 
section  in  the  words  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Sunapee?  In  that  way  "Christians,  Jews,  deists,"  anything 
and  everything,  would  be  included. 

Mr.  Sturoc.  The  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord 
does  not  meet  the  objection  of  the  gentleman  from  Claremont 
[Mr.  Walker].     I  understand  that  his  view  is,  that  the  word 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  37 

"Christian"  should  not  be  used  as  contradistinguished  from 
Jews.  That  is  the  point,  and  the  gentleman  from  Concord  does 
not  obviate  that  matter  when  he  still  retains  the  word  "  Chris- 
tian." 

Mr.  O'Conner  of  Manchester  moved  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment by  striking  out  the  first  four  words,  and  inserting  the 
words  "  all  religious  denominations," — and  upon  its  adoption 
called  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Portsmouth.  I  simply  rise  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  convention  back  to  the  original  ground  from  which 
we  started, — that  is,  the  language  of  Article  6.  I  do  not  think 
we  ever  found  any  difficulty,  or  any  one  has  ever  found  any  fault, 
with  that  article  as  it  stands.  It  certainly  does  no  one  any  in- 
jury, we  never  received  any  disadvantage  from  it,  and  every  one 
is  satisfied.  Now,  if  we  go  to  work  to  pick  up  every  technical 
thing  that  we  can  find,  that  does  not  do  anybody  any  hurt,  in 
this  Constitution,  and  undertake  to  regulate  it  by  fixing  it  to 
satisfy  the  views  of  all  these  delegates  and  the  views  of  the  voters 
of  New  Hampshire,  we  shall  not  finish  our  work  till  we  get  to 
heaven.  If  this  a  practical  thing,  and  comes  home  to  the  peo- 
ple, and  they  have  an  interest  in  it,  then  we  will  spend  our  time 
about  it ;  otherwise,  I  think  we  had  better  let  the  article  stand 
as  it  is  now. 

Mr.  Smyth  of  Manchester.  I  would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Manchester  [Mr.  O'Conner]  if  he  intended,  by 
his  amendment,  to  include  the  Mormons. 

Mr.  Mason  of  Moultonborough.  If  you  will  go  through  this 
convention,  and  inquire  of  every  particular  member,  you  wdl 
not  get  two  thirds  to  believe  it  is  proper  to  make  any  change  in 
the  article.  That  word  "Protestant"  makes  no  war  upon  any 
denomination  whatever.  It  does  not  make  war  upon  Gentile, 
Greek,  Mormon,  or  any  one  else.  It  is  simply  there  to  express 
the  regard  of  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  for  religious  insti- 
tutions. The  word  ''Protestant"  harms  nobody.  It  enacts 
nothing.  It  is  no  law  whatever.  But  if  you  take  that  word 
"  Protestant "  out  of  this  article,  and  send  it  to  the  people  of 
New  Hampshire,  we  all  know  how  many  there  are  who   are 


346215 


38  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

rather  sensitive  on  this  point,  and  they  will  reject  it  at  once  ; — 
and  when  they  reject  that,  they  will  be  very  likely  to  follow  suit 
when  they  come  to  act  on  the  other  articles.  As  the  word 
stands,  it  does  no  harm,  and  rejecting  it  will  do  no  good. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  There  may  be  many  gentlemen  in 
this  convention,  not  of  my  profession,  who  think  that  it  is  sim- 
ply a  matter  of  words ;  and,  as  the  matter  is  now  before  the 
committee,  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  express  my  sentiments  in  regard 
to  it.  Now,  a  case  arose  in  my  own  city  but  a  few  years  ago, 
which  was  decided  by  this  one  word  "  Christian,"  involving 
the  rights  of  the  people  of  a  certain  religious  denomination 
in  that  vicinity.  Notwithstanding  the  word  "Christian" 
was  there,  the  opinion  of  the  court  was  a  divided  one ; 
and  it  so  stands  now,  to-day,  the  divided  opinion  of  the 
court  based  on  this  case  ;  and  it  may  not  be  altogether  an 
unimportant  matter  that  this  question  may  be  settled  by  this 
convention.  It  arose  in  this  way :  A  denomination  called 
Unitarians,  or  who  were  Unitarians,  had  associated  themselves 
together  for  public  religious  worship, — for  "  the  worship  of 
God"  was  another  expression  in  their  articles  of  agreement, — 
building  a  church  in  Dover.  The  sentiments  of  that  society 
became  somewhat  changed.  A  majority  of  the  members  of 
that  society  desired  to  call  a  certain  man  as  their  preacher, 
who,  perhaps,  might  not  be  reckoned  a  Christian.  Still,  no- 
body of  any  denomination  who  ever  knew  him,  who  ever 
became  acquainted  with  him,  would  say  that  he  was  not  a  man 
as  pure  and  elevated  in  all  his  thoughts,  and  lived  as  purely  a 
Christian  life,  as  anv  man  in  our  community.  There  were 
many  of  us  who  differed  from  him  in  his  opinions,  and  there 
were  many,  who  differed  from  him,  who  desired  that  he  should 
be  retained  as  the  pastor  of  that  society.  An  injunction  was 
sought  by  the  minority  of  that  society  to  enjoin  him,  or  others 
who  might  preach  similar  doctrines,  from  pre  idling  in  that 
church.  The  court  gave  a  divided  opinion,  and,  a  majority 
being  in  favor  of  it,  an  injunction  was  issued  ;  and  pew-holders 
— members  of  the  society,  who  were  in  the  majority — were 
debarred  of  the  privilege  of  having  such  preaching  as  they 
most  desired.  Now,  1  do  not  bring  this  here  for  the  purpose 
of  making  any  argument  for  or  against  the  Christian  religion. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  39 

I  will  only  say,  that  the  gentleman  was  enjoined  from  preach- 
ing in  that  society.  His  views  did  not  meet  my  own  ;  but 
whatever  mine  may  he  is,  of  course,  of  no  consequence.  I  sim- 
ply mention  this  matter  to  bring  it  before  the  convention,  that 
they  may  see  that  the  rights  of  individuals  are  infringed  ;  that 
their  rights  not  only  to  their  religious  opinions,  but  their  rights, 
perhaps,  to  the  property  which  they  may  own,  are  at  stake  so 
long  as  the  word  remains  there  ;  and,  further,  that  some  of 
the  judges  composing  our  court  at  that  time  were  divided  in 
opinion  in  consequence  of  these  words  being  in  the  Constitu- 
tion ; — and  anybody  will  see  that  that  word  alone — "  Christian  " 
— is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  further  clauses  in  the  Consti- 
tution, or  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  relating  to  this  subject.  That 
word  stricken  out,  and  the  word  "  religious  "  before  the  word 
"  denomination,"  so  that  it  will  read  "  all  denominations," 
would  make  the  Bill  of  Rights  perfectly  harmonious  and  con- 
sistent, each  part  with  itself.  I  only  desire  to  bring  this  matter 
to  the  attention  of  the  convention,  without  expressing  any 
opinion  myself  in  regard  to  what  the  disposition  of  the  ques- 
tion should  be. 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua.  I  hope  my  friend  from  Manches- 
ter [Mr.  O'Conner]  will  not  insist  on  calling  the  yeas  and  nays. 
If  we  commence  at  this  time  to  make  these  sharp  divisions,  I 
fear  that  our  work  will  amount  to  nothing.  I  do  hope  that  my 
friend,  being  assured  of  most  generous  treatment  by  the  action 
of  the  convention  this  forenoon,  and  upon  all  questions  which 
are  likely  to  come  before  this  convention, — I  do  hope  that  we 
shall  not,  on  this  day,  the  first  of  our  deliberations,  have  the 
yeas  and  nays  called.     If  we  do,  we  shall  accomplish  nothing. 

Mr.  Sturoc.  If  it  is  within  the  power  of  a  member  of  a  delib- 
erative body,  when,  an  amendment  having  been  proposed — it 
the  proposer  has  the  privilege  to  accept  the  amendment  to  the 
amendment,  I  would  like  to  exercise  that  power  on  the  present 
occasion.  I  see  nothing  in  the  amendment  to  my  amendment 
that  is  very  objectionable  ;  and  I  certainly,  in  conjunction  with 
the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  would  disavow  any  desire  to  see  any 
sharp  practice  in  this  convention,  even  if  it  is  within  the  limits 
of  parliamentary  law.    I  certainly,  when  I  left  my  home  to  come 


40  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

here  and  represent  my  little  constituency  as  a  delegate,  left  be- 
hind me  all  the  prejudices  I  ever  had — especially,  my  political, 
partisan  prejudices  ;  and  if  it  is  possible  for  me  to  accept  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester  [Mr.  O'Conner], 
and  make  it  my  own,  I  will  do  so. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport.  I  have  read  the  Bill  of  Rights,  but 
I  never  heard  it  read  so  well,  nor  did  it  ever  sound  so  good  as 
it  did  whilst  being  read  to-day.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  what 
it  is  that  the  gentleman  from  Sunapee  would  have.  It  is  true, 
that  perhaps  this  preamble  might  be  amended,  and  it  would  be 
all  well  enough  ;  but  the  people  of  this  state  are  accustomed  to 
see  it  here,  and  I  believe  they  do  not  wish  to  have  it  stricken  out. 
Now  is  it  not  true,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  "  morality  and  piety, 
rightly  grounded  on  evangelical  principles,  will  give  the  greatest 
and  best  security  to  government ;"  isn't  that  true  ?  "And  will  lay 
in  the  hearts  of  men  the  strongest  obligations  to  due  subjection  ;" 
isn't  that  true?  "And  as  the  knowledge  of  these  is  most  likely 
to  be  propagated  through  a  society  by  the  institution  of  the 
public  worship  of  the  Deity,  and  of  public  instruction  in  moral- 
ity and  religion  ;"  isn't  that  true?  And,  to  the  end  of  it,  isn't 
it  all  true?  Then  why  do  we  wish  to  meddle  with  this,  at  this 
time?  I  am  certainly  sorry,  that  when  we  have  met  here  for 
the  purpose  of  making  amendments  in  those  obvious  things 
which  experience  has  shown  ought  to  be  amended,  we  should 
dive  deep  down  into  this  matter  at  the  outset,  and  bring  up 
those  small  matters  upon  which  we  shall  not  agree,  and  which 
will  endanger  the  adoption  of  our  work  by  the  people. 

Mr.  Sanborn  of  Franklin.  I  believe,  sir,  that  it  is  the  spirit 
and  intention  of  this  convention  not  to  go  into  any  frivolous  and 
meaningless  changes  ;  nor  to  offer  propositions  for  the  accept- 
ance of  the  people,  which  will  only  bring  confusion  to  their 
minds,  and  result  in  disaster  to  the  little  good  we  might  possi- 
bly accomplish.  I  think  there  is  a  way  out  of  this  delemma 
without  taking  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  I  therefore  move  that  the 
committee  do  now  rise. 

The  Chairman.  The  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Man- 
chester was  accepted  by  the  mover  of  the  resolution,  so  there  is 
no  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  before  the  convention. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  4 1 

Mr.  Sanborn.  I  make  the  suggestion,  not  as  a  partisan,  for 
I  have  no  feeling  in  relation  to  the  article.  We  have  lived 
under  it  all  our  lives  ;  we  shall  always  live  in  perfect  liberty  in 
New  Hampshire,  and  so  will  every  man,  be  he  Greek,  Jew,  or 
Gentile;  and  I  think  the  time  of  this  convention  is  of  infi- 
nitclv  more  account  than  any  word  whatever  in  the  6th  Article 
of  the  Bill  of  Rights.  I  make  the  motion  that  the  committee 
do  now  rise. 

Mr.  Sturoc.  Is  the  motion  for  the  committee  of  the  whole 
to  rise  debatable,  or  may  debate  be  entertained  previous  to  the 
putting  of  that  notion? 

The  Chairman.  I  cannot  say,  but  I  am  under  the  impression 
that  it  is  debatable. 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  Let  me' inquire  of  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Sanborn]  what  is  coming  up  when  the 
committee  sit  again? 

Mr.  Sanborn.     The  next  article. 

Mr.  Clark.  This  same  motion  will  come  before  the  com- 
mittee :  If  you  "  rise,"  what  are  you  going  to  do  when  you  get 
up  ? 

Mr.  Sanborn.  I  understand  the  committee  can  rise  and  report 
to  the  convention,  and  the  convention  can  take  up  the  next  ar- 
ticle. 

Mr.  M.  C.  Burleigh  of  Somersworth.  If  this  committee  rise, 
they  will  report  to  the  convention  the  action  of  the  committee 
that  the  word  u  Protestant "  was  stricken  out  from  the  6th  Ar- 
ticle of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  as  was  done  this  forenoon.  I  do  not 
understand  that  this  convention  has  any  idea  of  letting  that  ar- 
ticle remain  in  that  shape. 

Mr.  Burns  of  Lancaster.  It  occurs  to  me  that,  if  the 
committee  should  now  rise  and  report  to  the  convention,  the 
same  question  will  then  come  before  the  convention  ;  then  the 
yeas  and  nays  might  be  called  in  the  convention.  I  cannot  see, 
myself,  that  we  should  gain  anything.  My  own  idea  is,  we 
might  as  well  act  here  as  anywhere.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
if  we  were  framing  a  new  Constitution,  I  might  favor  the  amend- 


42  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

ment  proposed  by  my  friend  the  gentleman  from  Sunapee  ; 
but  I  knew  when  I  came  here  it  was  almost  the  universal  opin- 
ion of  my  constituents  that  this  convention  should  propose  to 
the  people  a  few  practical  amendments,  and  nothing  more.  I  say 
that  it  occurs  to  me  we  might  as  well  dispose  of  this  matter  in 
committee  of  the  whole,  because  it  will  bring  us  to  vote  on  the 
question  whether  we  shall  make  here  a  few  practical  amend- 
ments, and  submit  to  the  people  those  which  shall  be  really 
beneficial  to  the  people,  and  nothing  else.  We  have  it  under 
our  control,  and  the  matter  may  as  well  be  settled  here  as  any- 
where. My  idea  is,  if  you  go  on  here  in  committee  of  the  whole 
reading  this  Constitution  article  by  article, — every  man  seeing 
something  which  he  has  his  own  ideas  about,  and  which  he  thinks 
he  might  improve  upon, — there  will  be  just  as  many  sugges- 
tions and  just  as  many  propositions  as  there  are  members  of 
this  convention,  and  there  will  be  no  end  to  them  ; — we  might 
stay  here  month  after  month.  Therefore  I  do  urge  that  we  are 
here  for  the  purpose  of  submitting  a  few  practical,  important 
alterations  to  this  Constitution  for  the  action  of  the  people, — 
and     aving  done  so,  let  us  go  home. 

Mr.  Sanborn.     I  withdraw  my  motion. 

Mr.  Sturoc.  I  will  simply  say,  that  I  think  the  gentleman 
from  Lancaster  [Mr.  Burns]  will  not  surpass  me  in  the  desire 
to  do  that  which  is  practicable,  do  it  quickly,  and  do  no  more 
than  that.  I  am  equally  impressed,  with  the  gentleman  from 
Lancaster,  on  this  subject.  This  matter  was  before  this  con- 
vention without  any  active  interference  of  mine  ;  it  was  the 
legitimate  business  of  this  hour.  The  6th  Article  stood  still 
susceptible  of  further  amendments,  and  to  move  to  amend  it 
was  my  legitimate  right.  There  was  no  snap-dragon  move  in 
the  matter.  I  took  no  advantage,  nor  intended  to  take  any  ad- 
vantage, of  this  convention.  I  would  be  the  last  man  to  have 
introduced  anything  squinting  at  speculative  notions,  or  those 
subjects  that  arouse  the  passions  of  men.  I  want  simply  to 
stand  well  with  this  convention  ;  and  I  want  to  say  that  my 
connection  with  the  matter  has  been  thoroughly  legitimate — 
not  moved  or  suggested  by  any  factious  motives,  but  simply  to 
test  the  spirit  of  this  convention  on  a  matter  which  was  before 
them  legitimately. 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  43 

Mr.  Burns.  I  wish  the  gentleman  to  understand  that  I  do 
not  cast  any  reflections  on  him,  or  question  his  sincerity.  He 
entirely  misunderstood  me.  But  when  I  suggested  that  this 
question  he  met  now,  it  occurred  to  me  we  might  have  an 
expression  of  opinion  upon  this  important  question,  whether 
we  should  propose  a  great  number  of  amendments,  or  confine 
ourselves  to  a  few  practical  questions. 

The  question  recurring  upon  the  adoption  of  the  resolution 
as  amended,  Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord  called  for  a  division. 

Mr.  Gallinger.     I  voted  to  strike  from  Article  6    the  word 
"  Protestant."     I  am  prepared  this  afternoon  to  go  further,  and 
vote  for  the  amendment  which  has  been  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Sunapee,  and  the  amendment  to  the  amendment 
by  the  gentleman  from  Manchester.    I  do  so  because  I  conceive 
it  to  be  my  duty  to  my  conscience  and  to  my  state  to  take  that 
action.    The  gentleman  from  Newport  [Mr.  Barton]   raises  the 
question  whether  "  morality    and  piety,  rightly    grounded    on 
evangelical  principles,"  is  not  the  right  thing.     Well,  now,  our 
friends  the  Unitarians,  Universalists,  and  some  of  the  Episco- 
pal persuasion,  do  not  view  it  in  that  light;  they  are  not  "evan- 
gelical."    My  own  connection  is  with  an  evangelical  church, 
but  I  do  not  believe  in  legislation  that  makes  discrimination  on 
these  matters,  any  more  than  on  other  matters.     I  think  our 
Bill  of  Rights  in  that  particular  is  inconsistent,  and  it  ought 
to  be  stricken  out.     It  has  been  remarked  to-day  that  there  js  no 
objection  to  this  article.     I  hold  in  my  hand  a  scrap  from  a 
newspaper,  representing  one  of  the  largest  religious  denomina- 
tions in  this  country,  and  I  presume  they  have  the  same  rights 
of  a  political  and  religious  nature  that  I  have,  or  the  gentlemen 
of  this  convention  have  ;  and  yet  the  editor  of  that  paper  says, 
after  quoting  Article  2d  (some  portions  of  it),  and  then  quoting 
another  portion  of  Article  6th,  "  it  is  hardly  to  be  believed  that 
the  men  who  laid  down  this  broad  platform  of  Article  2d,  dis- 
played  their  narrow  spirit  by  making  Protestantism  the  state 
religion,  in  Article  6."     That  is  precisely  my  position,  and  the 
position  of  a  great  religious  denomination  in  this  country,  and 
I  presume  of  others  ;  and  I  should  like  to  see  the  entire  matter 
stricken  out  and  put  upon  a  basis  that  all  men  can  support. 


44  JOURNAL   OF  THE 

The  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Sanborn]  and  the  gentle- 
man from  Lancaster  [Mr.  Burns]  remind  us  of  the  fact  that 
we  are  to  submit  a  few  practical  amendments.  I  suppose  both 
those  gentlemen  are  in  favor  of  enlarging  the  Senate  and  cur- 
tailing the  House,  and  yet  they  will  find  that  those  amendments, 
suggested  twenty-six  years  ago,  were  voted  down  by  a  much 
larger  majority  than  the  amendment  relating  to  this  matter.  I 
believe  the  people  are  ready  to  expunge  this  evidence  of  narrow- 
mindedness  from  our  Bill  of  Rights,  and  I  think  it  is  well  to 
make  the  test  here  on  this  occasion. 

Upon  the  question  being  stated,  on  division,  129  gentlemen 
voted  in  the  affirmative  and  144  in  the  negative. 

And  the  negative  prevailed,  and  the  resolution  was  rejected. 
Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter  introduced  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  Article  20  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  be  amended 
by  inserting  after  the  word  "  practised  "  the  following  words, 
to  wit,  "  and  except  in  cases  in  which  the  value  in  controversy 
does  not  exceed  one  hundred  dollars,  and  title  to  real  estate  is 
not  concerned." 

Mr.  Marston.  I  will  read  the  whole  article,  and  explain  to 
the  committee  the  object  of  the  amendment.  If  it  is  amended 
as  I  propose,  it  will  read  in  this  way:  "In  all  controversies 
concerning  property,  and  in  all  suits  between  two  or  more  per- 
sons, except  in  cases  in  which  it  has  been  heretofore  otherwise 
used  and  practised,  and  except  in  cases  in  which  the  value  in 
controversy  does  not  exceed  one  hundred  dollars,  and  title  to 
real  estate  is  not  concerned,  the  parties  have  a  right  to  trial  by 
jury  ;  and  this  method  of  procedure  shall  be  held  sacred,  unless, 
in  cases  arising  on  the  high  seas,  and  such  as  i-elate  to  mariners' 
wages,  the  legislature  shall  think  it  necessary  hereafter  to  alter 
it."  The  only  grievance  that  I  know  of,  that  the  people  suffer 
by  reason  of  this  provision  of  the  Constitution,  is  the  immense 
disproportion  in  the  costs  of  the  trials  of  small  cases  to  the 
amount  involved.  Our  dockets  are  now  loaded  down  with 
cases  where  the  amount  in  controversy  is  less  than  $100,  and 
they  are  continued  from  term  to  term,  because  there  is  not 
force  enough  upon  the  bench  to  hold  the  terms  to  try  the  causes  ; 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  45 

and  in  a  great  many  instances,  when  they  are  tried,  they  occupy 
a  day,  or  more,  at  an  expense  of  from  $100  to  $150  a  clay  to  the 
County — and  oftentimes  when  the  whole  matter  in  controversy 
is  only  a  few  cents.  Now,  under  the  Constitution  as  it  now 
stands,  the  legislature  has  no  power  to  establish  any  tribunal 
to  make  a  final  disposition  of  any  cause,  however  small  it  may 
be,  without  a  trial  by  jury,  if  either  side  desires  it.  This  is 
regarded  by  a  great  many  people  as  a  great  grievance,  and  a 
great  wrong  and  burden  upon  the  people.  No  one  knows, 
probably,  to  what  an  extent  this  thing  costs  each  county  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire.  It  is  enormous.  It  is  out  of  all  pro- 
portion to  the  few  dollars  at  stake.  The  proposition  here  is, 
not  to  erect  any  tribunal  for  the  decision  of  any  causes,  but,  "  in 
cases  where  the  value  in  controversy  does  not  exceed  $100,  and 
the  title  to  real  estate  is  not  concerned,"  make  that  amend- 
ment so  that  the  legislature  may,  in  their  wisdom,  establish 
some  tribunal,  if  they  think  best,  by  which  there  can  be  a 
more  speedy  disposition  had,  and  at  a  less  expense  to  the  peo- 
ple, in  small  causes. 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua.  I  was  not  anticipating  that  this 
subject  would  come  before  this  convention,  or  this  committee, 
at  so  early  a  day.  Upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Andover  [Mr.  Shirley],  a  resolution  of  inquiry  was  introduced 
into  this  convention,  seeking  to  obtain  information  as  to  the 
cost  to  the  public  of  the  trial  of  small  causes  in  court.  And  I  un- 
derstand from  that  gentleman,  who  is  not  now  present,  I  think, 
that  it  was  his  purpose,  as  a  member  of  that  committee  of  in- 
quiry, to  make  a  careful  examination,  so  far  as  it  could  be  done 
in  a  day  or  two,  and  furnish  the  convention  with  information 
tending  to  show  that  the  cost  of  the  trial  of  these  small  causes 
is  entirely  disproportionate  to  the  results  reached.  But  I  see 
that  the  matter,  contrary  to  all  expectation,  is  now  before  this 
committee,  and  must  be  discussed  at  this  time  ;  and  you  will 
pardon  me  if  I  occupy  a  few  moments  in  the  consideration  of 
this  question, — for  I  believe,  if  the  matter  can  be  properly 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  members  of  this  convention,  that 
they  will,  with  very  considerable  if  not  complete  unanimity, 
favor  the  recommendation  of  the  distinguished  gentleman  from 
Exeter.     Now,  if  you  have  been  about  the  courts  considerably, 


46  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

and  your  ears  have  been  open,  you  cannot  fail  to  have  heard 
general  complaint  upon  the  pai't  of  everybody,  tax-payers  es- 
pecially, at  the  enormous  expenses  which  are  put  on  the  public 
by  individuals  having  a  controversy  about  a  few  dollars,  and 
sometimes  about  a  few  cents.    It  is  a  fact,  that  in  the  county  of 
Sullivan,  within  a  month  or  two,  the  court,  officered  by  a  dis- 
tinguished member  of  the  bench,  fully  attended  by  jurymen  and 
all  the  other  officers  of  the  court,  sat  four  days,  at  an  expense 
to  the  small  county  of  Sullivan  of  something  like  $300  or  $400, 
— and,  as  I  am  told,  at  an  expense  of  $300  or  $400  to  the  parties  in 
the  way  of  costs, — to  consider  whether  or  not  the  title  of  one  of  the 
citizens  of  that  county  to  a  piece  of  property  valued  at  $3  was 
better  than  the  title  of  his  opponent.    Now,  from  long  observa- 
tion of  this  matter,  from  a  careful  examination  of  the  facts  and 
the  figures,  I  think  I  am  justified  in  saying  that  if  you  leave  out  an 
occasional  large  verdict,  where  there  is  perhaps  little  or  no  con- 
troversy— leaving  out  an  occasional  large  verdict — all  the  ver- 
dicts recovered  in  our  several  counties  are  not  more  than  equal 
to  the  public  expense  incurred.     It  may  be  objected  that  this  ■ 
right  of  trial  by  jury  has  come  down  from  the  olden  time.     We 
grant  it.    But  it  never  has  been  conceded  that  it  was  an  inalien- 
able right,  because  always  there  have  been  large  exceptions  in 
the  classes  of  cases  that  have  been  entitled  to  jury  trials.     In 
the  grave  question  of  divorce,  wherein  perhaps  one  of  the  most 
delicate  rights  of  parties  is  to  be  adjusted  in  this  state,  we  have 
never  allowed  the  parties  a  right  to  trial  by  jury.     It  never 
has   been   done  in  the  matter  of  alimony  ;  it  never  has  been 
done  in  the  matter  of  the  custody  of  children  ;  it  never  has 
been   done,  nor  ever  claimed  as  a  right,  in  large  numbers  of 
equity  cases.     It  never  has  been  claimed  as  a  right,  and  never 
has  been  conceded  as  a   right,  in  the  settlement  of  extensive 
partnership  concerns,  that  parties  had  a  right  to  trial  by  jury. 
I  make  these  suggestions,  because  it  may  be  urged  on  the  other 
side  that  it  is  a  right  which  never  has  been  infringed,  upon,  and 
we  must  not,  at  this  late  day,  do  anything  to  curtail  it.     With- 
out marshalling  any  facts  or  figures,  which  I  proposed  to  do,  I 
think  I  could  show  you,  were  it  necessary,  a  state  of  facts  indi- 
cating a  great  evil  to  be   redressed.     I,  however,  desire  to  say 
to  this  convention,  what  probably  almost  every  man  knows,  that 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  47 

the  expenses  in  our  counties  are  increasing  every  clay  ;  that  the 
number  of  small  causes  is  rapidly  accumulating  upon  the 
docket,  and  that  something  should  be  done.  The  legislature, 
the  past  year,  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Exeter 
[Mr.  Marston],  passed  a  very  good  referee  law.  The  framers  of 
this  amendment  do  not  propose  to  indicate  what  should  be  done. 
We  propose  to  leave  it  to  the  wisdom  of  the  legislature  to  provide 
some  reasonable  and  proper  tribunal  for  the  proper  considera- 
tion of  these  small  causes.  We  desire  that  the  Constitution,  at 
this  time,  be  so  amended,  that  the  legislature,  in  its  wisdom, 
upon  a  full  examination  of  this  matter,  may  have  the  power  to 
send  the  trial  of  these  little  causes,  which  make  so  much  ex- 
pense, to  some  tribunal  to  be  agreed  upon  and  created  by  the 
legislature.  And  we  can  make  no  mistake  in  this  matter,  for, 
in  case  the  legislature  next  year,  or  the  year  after,  should  con- 
stitute a  tribunal  which  was  not  entirely  satisfactory  to  the  peo- 
ple, that  action  could  be  entirely  reversed,  and  some  other 
tribunal  could  be  tried.  I  hope,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  com- 
mittee will  favorably  consider  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Exeter. 

Mr.  Quarles  of  Ossipee.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  the  last 
amendment  for  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  to  adopt.  The 
framers  of  the  Constitution  believed  in  the  sacred  right  of  trial 
by  jury  ;  and  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  at  that  time,  and 
since  that  time,  have  ever  deemed  it  a  sacred  right.  Increasing 
the  number  of  inferior  tribunals  is  wrong  in  principle,  and  has 
ever  worked  badly  in  practice.  Even  the  litte  jurisdiction 
given  to  justices  of  the  peace  has  been  abused.  It  is  true  that 
there  is  an  appeal,  so  that  parties  have  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  ; 
but  we  all  know  that  it  is  a  fact  that  our  justices  are  too  often 
under  the  confrol  of  some  counsel, — somebody  who  will  unlock 
the  doors  of  justice.  So  it  would  be  with  your  courts  of  infe- 
rior jurisdiction,  in  the  minds  of  the  people.  One  instance: 
An  eminent  lawyer  of  Carroll  count)7  died,  and  the  justice  be- 
fore whom  he  brought  his  cases  went  to  the  funeral.  Prior  to 
the  service  he  accosted  one  of  the  audience,  and  said, — k>  Mr. 
So-and-so  was  a  very  able  lawyer — a  very  successful  lawyer. 
Why,"  said  he,  "I  was  looking  over  my  docket  this  morning, 
and,  out  of  several  hundred  cases  he  had  brought  before  me,  he 


48  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

never  lost  one."  Well,  that  is  the  state  of  things  existing  now  : 
that  is  what  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  will  expect  from 
your  courts  of  inferior  jurisdiction,  and  when  you  make  them, 
and  take  away  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  they  will  say  "  No." 
We  found  that  the  referee  law, "passed  a  few  years  ago,  worked 
badly  ;  the  litigants  would  not  abide  by  the  referee's  decision  ; 
the  parties  against  whom  the  decision  was  went  to  the  jury,  and 
the  costs  were  increased.  You  have  increased  the  cost  to  coun- 
ties throughout  the  whole  state.  The  gentleman  [Mr.  Rams- 
dell]  speaks  about  "small  causes."  Do  not  the  same  principles 
of  law  apply  to  one  hundred  dollars  and  ten  dollars?  Are  not 
the  same  rules  to  be  applied  to  them — they  need  the  same  rights 
and  remedies  that  the  thousand  dollar  cases  have — as  a  matter 
of  principle?  The  people  of  New  Hampshire  think  so.  What 
difference  does  it  make  whether  a  hundred  dollars  is  in  contro- 
versy, or  ten  dollars?  Why,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  take  the  man's 
ten  dollars  and  give  him  an  inferior  tribunal,  to  give  the  hundred- 
dollar  man  a  superior  tribunal.  The  gentleman  from  Nashua 
says  there  are  certain  cases  where  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  was 
never  had,  as  in  divorce  ;  but  we  give  all  those  cases  the  bene- 
fit of  a  trial  before  justices  of  the  superior  court,  in  the  highest 
court,  and  they  are  protected,  and  very  well  protected,  there. 
I  hope  we  shall  not  undertake  to  amend  Section  20  in  the  man- 
ner suggested. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  think  the  argument  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Ossipee  is  misleading.  The  object  of  the  mover  was 
to  have  some  tribunal  provided  by  which  these  cases  can  be 
tried.  He  [Mr.  Quarles]  undertakes  to  say  this  takes  away  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury.  If  he  were  conversant  with  the  laws  of 
other  states,  or  if  he  had  lived  in  other  states,  as  I  have,  he 
would  find  that  all  small  cases  are  tried  by  a  justice  of  the 
peace  ;  and  if  the  parties  before  the  justice  wished  for  a  jury, 
they  could  have  it  of  their  own  free  will.  And  I  know  from 
my  experience,  some  ten  or  fifteen  years  of  my  life  after  I 
arrived  of  age,  that  those  cases  were  managed  very  much  better 
by  trial  justices,  and  by  intimate  neighbors  of  the  litigants,  than 
they  are  in  this  state.  I  think  the  legislature  can  provide  a  tri- 
bunal very  much  better  than  to  have  the  matter  rest  as  it  is. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  49 

Mr.  Wallace  of  Rochester.  I  do  not  think  this  right  of  going 
through  these  small  cases  in  court,  before  a  jury,  is  a  right  that 
the  people  want  to  maintain.  After  going  through  a  jury  trial, 
and  a  reference,  you  will  find  you  can  get  more  justice  from  the 
reference  than  from  a  jury.  Many  men  have  wrong  views  about 
this  matter  of  a  jury  trial,  and  I  am  very  glad  that  so  eminent 
a  man  as  the  gentleman  from  Exeter  [Mr.  Marston]  suggested 
this  thing, — a  man  who  of  all  men  is  conversant  with  the  sub- 
ject. I  am  glad  the  motion  comes  from  such  high  authority. 
A  large  amount  will  be  saved  in  taxes  and  in  time.  I  hope  the 
amendment  will  be  adopted. 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  resolution  was 
adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter,  the  committee  rose. 

IN    CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Bingham,  chairman,  reported  that  the  committee  of  the 
whole  had  had  under  consideration  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  had 
adopted  an  amendment  to  Article  20,  as  follows :  By  inserting 
after  the  word  "practised"  the  following  words,  "and  except 
in  cases  in  which  the  value  in  controversy  does  not  exceed  one 
hundred  dollars,  and  title  to  real  estate  is  not  concerned." 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  convention  adopted  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  committee  to  Article  6,  and  also 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  committee  to  Article  20. 

Ordered  that  the  Bill  of  Rights,  as  amended,  lie  on  the  table 
until  the  appointment  of  the  committee  provided  for  by  the  rules. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth,  the  president  was 
authorized  to  appoint  as  many  pages  as  are  necessary — not  ex- 
ceeding three — and  also  a  teller  for  each  division  of  the  house. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Barton  of  Newport,  the  printed  copies  of 
the  Journal  of  the  Convention  to  Revise  the  Constitution  of 
1791-2,  presented  by  the  secretary  of  state,  and  now  lying  upon 
the  table,  be  so  distributed  as  that  each  member  and  officer 
of  the  convention  may  receive  one  copy. 
4 


50  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter,  the  convention  resolved 
itself  into  committee  of  the  whole,  on  so  much  of  Part  Second 
of  the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  General  Court. 

IN    COMMITTEE    OF   THE   WHOLE. 

(Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter  in  the  chair.) 

The  clerk  having  read  so  much  of  Part  Second  of  the  Consti- 
tution as  relates  to  the  General  Court, 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord, 

Resolved,  That  the  committee  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask 
leave  to  sit  again. 

IN   CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Bell,  chairman,  reported  that  the  committee  of  the  whole 
had  had  under  consideration  so  much  of  Part  Second  of  the 
Constitution  as  relates  to  the  General  Court,  without  determi- 
nation, and  asked  leave  to  sit  again. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter,  the  convention  adjourned. 


FRIDAY,  December  8,  1876. 

The  convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  president  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  chaplain. 

The  journal  was  read  and  approved. 

The  credentials  of  Abial  L.  Eastman,  member  elect  from  the 
town  of  Jackson,  were  presented,  and  Mr.  Eastman  took  seat 
in  the  convention. 

The  following  resolution,  introduced  by  Mr.  Adams  of  Spring- 
field, was  laid  on  the  table  on  motion  of  Mr.  Barton  of  New- 
port : 

Resolved,  That  the  business  of  this  convention  be  brought  to 
a  close  on  Friday  next. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  5  I 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gustine  of  Keene,  the  following  resolution 
was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  one  from  each  county  be  ap- 
pointed for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  amount  of  compen- 
sation to  which  the  members  of  this  convention  are  entitled  as 
mileage. 

The  president  announced  the  following  appointments  for 
tellers  and  pages,  and  standing  committees  of  the  convention  : 

TELLERS. 

Division  1,  Bedel  of  Colebrook  ;  2,  Mann  of  Benton  ;  3,  Gil- 
man  of  Nashua  ;  4,  Sanborn  of  Franklin ;  5,  Thompson  of 
Concord. 

PAGES. 

Arthur  F.  Shepard  of  Concord,  Charles  H.  Duffy  of  Nashua. 

STANDING    COMMITTEES. 

Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights,  Executive  Department,  and 
Religious  Test :  Messrs.  Wheeler  of  Dover,  Berry  of  New 
Durham,  Stickney  of  Exeter,  Marcy  of  Portsmouth,  Dicker- 
man  of  New  Hampton,  Brown  of  Til  ton,  Coleman  of  Brook- 
field,  Abbott  of  Conway,  Ordway  of  Warner,  Blodgett  of 
Franklin,  Davis  of  Amherst,  Jackson  of  Manchester,  Amidon 
of  Hinsdale,  Bufllim  of  Walpole,  Walker  of  Claremont,  Sturoc 
of  Sunapee,  Shaw  of  Lebanon,  Sinclair  of  Bethlehem,  Harvey 
of  Columbia,  Burns  of  Lancaster. 

Committee  on  Legislative  Department :  Messrs.  Bingham  of 
Littleton,  Johnson  of  Enfield,  Healey  of  Stratham,  Clarke  of 
Atkinson,  Smith  of  Strafford,  G.  W.  Burleigh  of  Somersworth, 
Whipple  of  Laconia,  Cole  of  Gilford,  Pitman  of  Bartlctt,  Hub- 
bard of  Tamworth,  Flanders  of  Wilmot,  Colby  of  New  Lon- 
don, Smith  of  Mont  Vernon,  Briggs  of  Manchester,  Bemis  of 
Harrisville,  Albee  of  Winchester,  Adams  of  Springfield,  Pike 
of  Cornish,  Bedel  of  Colebrook,  Brown  of  Whitefield. 

Committee  on  Judiciary  Department :  Messrs.  Sargent  of 
Concord,  Whittemore  of  Pembroke,  Dow  of  Hampton,  Saw- 
yer of  South  Hampton,  Eastman  of  Farmington,  Woodman 
of  Lee,  Marsh  of  Gilmanton,  George  of  Barnstead,  Quarles  of 


52  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

Ossipee,  Went  worth  of  Sandwich,  Ramsdell  of  Nashua,  Sar- 
gent of  Hudson,  Faulkner  of  Keene,  Vilas  of  Alstead,  Barton 
of  Newport,  Moulton  of  Plainfield,  Parker  of  Hanover,  Put- 
nam of  Warren,  Benton  of  Lancaster,  Howard  of  Gorham. 

Committee  on  future  amendments  of  the  Constitution  and 
other  miscellaneous  matters :  Messrs.  Frink  of  Greenland, 
Eastman  of  Hampstead,  Woodman  of  Somersworth,  White- 
house  of  Rochester,  Perkins  of  Center  Harbor,  Woodman  of 
Alton,  Mason  of  Moultonborough,  Whitton  of  Wolfeborough, 
Shirley  of  Andover,  Harvey  of  Hopkinton,  Hutchinson  of  New 
Boston,  Scott  of  Peterborough,  Faulkner  of  Swanzey,  Parker 
of  Fitzwilliam,  Perkins  of  Unity,  Labaree  of  Charlestown, 
Burrows  of  Plymouth,  Murray  of  Canaan,  Perkins  of  Jefferson, 
Twitchell  of  Milan. 

Ordered,  That  the  Bill  of  Rights  as  amended  be  taken  from 
the  table,  and  referred  to  the  committees  on  Bill  of  Rights, 
executive  department,  and  religious  tests. 

Mr.  Sanborn  of  Franklin,  for  the  committee  to  whom  was 
referred  the  resolution  appointing  George  J.  Manson  official 
reporter  of  the  convention,  and  fixing  his  compensation  at  five 
dollars  per  day,  submitted  the  following  report : 

Your  committee  have  conferred  with  Mr.  Manson,  and  he 
declines  to  accept  the  position  of  official  reporter  to  the  con- 
vention for  the  compensation  named  in  the  resolution,  viz., 
five  dollars  per  day.  Mr.  Manson,  however,  informs  your 
committee  that  he  will  accept  the  position  at  the  usual  rate  of 
compensation,  to  wit,  twenty-five  cents  per  folio  of  one  hundred 
words.  Your  committee,  therefore,  respectfully  refer  the  reso- 
lution back  to  the  convention. 

Mr.  Thompson  of  Concord  moved  an  amendment,  and  in 
support  thereof  addressed  the  convention  as  follows : 

I  would  say,  Mr.  President,  that  the  auditors  of  the  state 
printer's  accounts  are  sworn  officers  of  the  state,  and  practical 
printers ;  and  I  am  confident  that  they  would  not  allow  any 
work  to  pass  except  such  as  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  people 
of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  53 

The  President.  The  chair  would  inform  the  gentleman  from 
Concord  that  his  amendment,  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  pre- 
sented, is  not  in  order.  If  the  gentleman  will  move  to  recon- 
sider the  vote  providing  for  a  per  diem  compensation,  and  the 
same  is  reconsidered,  it  will  then  he  in  order. 

Whereupon,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Thompson,  the  vote  provid- 
ing for  a  per  diem  compensation  for  the  official  reporter  was 
reconsidered. 

Thereupon  Mr.  Thompson  of  Concord  introduced  the  fol- 
lowing amendment : 

Strike  out  the  words  "  and  that  he  be  allowed  a  compensation 
of  five  dollars  per  day,"  and  insert  the  following :  "  and  that  he 
be  paid  for  his  services  the  usual  compensation  for  similar 
work, — the  amount  of  work  done,  and  the  rate  of  compensa- 
tion, to  be  ascertained  and  fixed  by  the  auditors  of  state  printer's 
accounts,  and  certified  by  them  to  the  state  treasurer." 

The  President.  The  question  will  be  upon  striking  out  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr.  Gallinger], 
and  inserting  what  has  just  been  read. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  Having  been  upon  this  committee, 
I  feel  it  my  duty  to  call  one  matter  to  the  attention  of  this  con- 
vention ;  and  it  is,  What  kind  of  a  report  do  you  want?  It  will 
make  a  very  considerable  difference  in  the  expense.  Do  you 
want  a  report  that  shall  embrace  all  the  proceedings  of  this 
convention, — everything  that  is  done  and  said, — a  debate,  for 
instance,  in  full?  or,  do  you  want  an  abstract  report, — one 
which  would  embrace  what  was  done  without  embracing  or 
reporting  all  the  discussions  here  in  the  convention?  This  is  a 
matter  of  considerable  importance,  because  it  enters  into  the 
item  of  expense,  about  which  the  American  people  are  very 
sensitive,  and  New  Hampshire  as  much  so  as  any  state  in  the 
Union. 

Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord.  I  desire  to  submit  a  single  re- 
mark upon  this  question  before  a  vote  is  taken.  I  have  simply 
one  object,  which  is  this, — that  I  predict  that  it  will  be  impos- 
sible to  determine  beforehand  the  amount  of  work  our  reporter 
is  expected  to  perform  under  the  resolution  amended  as  pro- 


54  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

posed.  It  will  be  necessary  for  the  reporter  to  take  full  notes, 
which  he  does  not  wish  to  do  if  they  are  not  to  be  used.  Our 
reporter  has  made  a  proposition  which,  it  occurs  to  me,  will 
commend  itself  to  every  member  of  the  convention,  and  which, 
I  think,  will  be  preferable  to  that  of  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord [Mr.  Thompson], — that  is,  he  is  prepared  to  make  an 
abstract  of  all  papers  presented  and  speeches  made  in  this  con- 
vention. He  will  write  out  this  abstract,  and  incorporate  it 
with  the  report  of  our  secretary  ;  and  for  that  work  he  will 
require  twenty-five  cents  per  folio,  but  will  give  us  the  assur- 
ance that  the  entire  sum  shall  not  exceed  the  salary  of  the  clerk 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.  If  the  resolution  is  left  in 
the  form  read,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  thing  he  cannot  tell 
the  amount, — it  might  be  $500  and  it  might  be  $2,000  ;  but, 
by  giving  an  abstract  of  the  speeches  made  here,  he  guarantees 
us  that  the  sum  shall  not  exceed  $500.  Now,  we  should  have 
something  to  go  upon — a  basis.  I  had  prepared  an  amend- 
ment covering  that  point,  but  presume  it  is  well  enough  to  act 
first  upon  the  amendment  suggested  by  my  colleague.  I  hope 
the  amendment  will  not  be  adopted. 

And,  upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was 
rejected. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gallinger,  the  following  resolution  was 
adopted  as  a  substitute  for  the  preceding  proposition  : 

Resolved,  That  George  J.  Manson  be  employed  as  official 
reporter  of  this  convention,  his  duties  to  consist  of  making  an 
abstract  of  all  papers  and  debates,  which  shall  be  incorporated 
with  the  records  of  the  secretary, — the  compensation  of  the 
reporter  to  be  twenty-five  cents  per  folio,  and  that  his  entire 
compensation  shall  not  exceed  the  sum  allowed  the  clerk  of 
the  House  of  Representatives. 

Mr.  Sturoc  of  Sunapee.  I  would  like  to  move  to  reconsider, 
having  voted  with  the  majority,  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote  by 
which  we  agreed  to  employ  an  official  reporter,  and  compen- 
sate him  in  a  particular  way.  I  am  in  the  condition  of  the 
ancient  philosopher  who  had  seen  so  far  into  the  subject,  but 
cried  out,  in  his  endeavor  to  see,  "  More  light,  more  light !  "    I 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  55 

do  not  precisely  understand  this  matter,  and  I  am  willing  to 
confess  my  ignorance.  What  is  this  official  report  to  amount 
to?  I  understand  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord [Mr.  Gallinger]  was  to  the  effect  that  this  official  report 
was  to  be  dovetailed  or  incorporated  into  the  journal  of  the 
secretary.  Almost  an  impossibility, — at  all  events,  a  work  of 
great  labor  and  immense  expense.  At  any  rate,  if  it  is  simply 
an  abstract,  giving  just  the  gist  of  what  we  say  on  a  subject,  it 
will  not  cast  a  great  deal  of  light  on  the  proceedings  as  chron- 
icled by  the  secretary ;  and  will  it  not  cost  more  than  it  will 
come  to  ?  I  therefore  move,  with  a  view  to  another  proposition, 
that  we  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  we  employed  an  official 
reporter,  and  proposed  to  compensate  him  in  a  particular  way. 

And  upon  that  question  being  stated,  Mr.  Sturoc  called  for  a 
division. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill.  It  occurs  to  me  that  the  question  of 
an  official  reporter  is  settled.  The  members  have  expressed 
themselves  several  times  in  regard  to  the  matter.  My  idea  is, 
so  far  as  our  talk  is  concerned,  that  the  shorter  the  speeches 
are  made,  the  better  our  constituents  will  be  satisfied.  After 
We  have  given  our  reasons  we  had  better  keep  still. 

Upon  the  question  being  stated,  on  division  75  gentlemen 
voted  in  the  affirmative  and  102  in  the  negative  ;  and  the  neg- 
ative prevailed,  and  the  motion  to  reconsider  was  rejected. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord,  the  convention  re- 
solved itself  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  so  much  of  Part 
Second  of  the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  General  Court,  and 
that  all  resolutions  now  on  the  table  relating  to  that  subject  be 
referred  to  said  committee. 

IN  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE. 

(Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter  in  the  chair.) 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bartlett  of  Manchester,  the  clerk  proceeded 
to  call  the  articles  one  by  one. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Peterborough  introduced  the  following  amend- 
ment : 


56  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

Amend  Section  3  by  striking  out  the  words  "  every  year"  in 
the  first  line,  and  inserting  instead  thereof  the  word  "  biennially." 

Mr.  Smith.  My  object  in  moving  this  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  is  this :  I  am  fearful,  from  the  history  of  the  past 
and  from  the  opinions  of  the  members  present  with  whom  I 
have  conversed,  that  during  this  convention  we  shall  not  be 
able  to  reduce  the  members  of  the  house ;  and  I  have  taken 
this  course  in  order,  if  that  proposition  does  not  succeed,  that 
instead  of  meeting  annually  we  shall  meet  biennially.  I  un- 
derstand, from  the  treasurer  of  the  state,  that  the  expense  of 
the  legislature  annually  is  in  the  vicinity  of  fifty  thousand  dol- 
lars. If  we  can  save  one  session  in  two  years,  we  shall  save 
to  this  state  in  taxes,  annually,  about  twenty-five  thousand  dol- 
lars ;  and  my  object  is,  to  go  before  the  people  of  the  state  with 
such  an  amendment,  in  order  to  reduce  the  expenses  of  the 
state,  as  will  command  their  approval.  I  think  the  laws  of 
this  state,  which  are  made  from  year  to  year,  are  too  many  in 
number  ;  and  if  we  can  reduce  the  sessions  from  an  annual 
session  to  a  biennial,  by  that  means  the  laws  will  be  less  in 
number  than  are  now  made,  and  we  have  a  chance  to  test  those 
laws  for  a  longer  period  of  time  before  we  shall  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  repeal  or  amend  them.  It  is  a  fact,  known  to  every 
person  who  is  conversant  with  the  laws  of  New  Hampshire, 
that  the  laws  made  one  session  are  to  a  great  extent  either  re- 
pealed or  amended  during  the  next  session  ;  and  my  object  is  to 
save  this  expense  to  the  state,  and  make  such  laws  as  shall  have 
a  fair  trial  through  two  years  with  the  people,  before  the  legis- 
lature has  the  chance  to  appeal  or  amend  those  laws. 

And  the  same  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Slayton  of  Manchester  moved  further  to  amend  by 
striking  out  the  words  in  the  first  and  second  lines,  "  on  the 
first  Wednesday  of  June,"  and  inserting  the  words  "  the  first 
Wednesday  of  January,"  and  also  to  make  a  similar  change 
in  the  fourth  line  of  said  article. 

Mr.  Bartlett  of  Manchester.  It  strikes  me  that  the  merit  of 
this  proposition  depends  upon  whether  or  not  we  change  the 
time  of  the  annual  election  ;  and  it  strikes  me  that  we  shall  pro- 
ceed more  regularly  and  understandingly  if  we  omit  to  act  upon 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  57 

this  amendment  until  we  determine  whether  or  not  we  change 
the  time  for  the  annual  election  ;  and,  with  that  view,  I  move 
that  this  amendment  he  passed  over  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Hampstead  moved  to  amend  the  amendment 
by  striking  out  "January  "  and  inserting  "  December." 

Mr.  Sawyer  of  Berlin  gave  notice,  if  the  amendment  was  re- 
jected, he  should  move  to  insert  the  word  "  May." 

Whereupon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester 
was  adopted,  and    the  subject  was  laid  aside  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Thompson  of  Concord  moved  the  following  amendment : 

Amend  Article  5  by  inserting  after  the  word  "  Constitution," 
where  it  first  occurs  in  said  article,  the  following  words :  "  or 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

Mr.  Thompson.  I  desire  to  say  just  one  word  as  .to  this 
amendment.  Gentlemen  of  the  convention  very  well  under- 
stand, I  suppose,  that  this  Constitution,  of  which  this  article  is 
a  part,  was  originally  adopted  before  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  The  convention  of  1850  inserted  the  amendment 
that  I  suggest,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  very  proper  that  the 
amendment  should  be  inserted  here  now. 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster.  I  see  no  necessity  for  that  amend- 
ment at  all.  If  the  legislature  of  this  state  pass  any  law  in 
opposition  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  of  course  it  would 
be  inoperative  ;  and  if  the  amendment  were  adopted,  they  would 
be  just  as  liable  to  pass  them,  through  ignorance  of  the  laws  of 
the  United  States. 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  I  think  I  see  the  object  of  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr.  Thompson], 
but  I  desire  to  suggest  to  him  and  to  the  convention,  that  he  can- 
not attain  his  object  fully  by  that  amendment.  The  legislature 
of  New  Hampshire  has  no  more  power  to  pass  a  law  against  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  than  it  has  against  the  Constitution  ; 
no  more  power  against  a  treaty,  than  against  the  Constitution  ; 
so,  to  make  his  amendment  perfect,  I  think  it  should  be  "  law, 
treaty,  and  Constitution."  I  question  whether  it  is  policy  to  use 
the  time  of  the  convention,  and  to  submit  such  an  amendment 
to  the  people. 


58  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill  introduced  the  following  amendment, 
which  was  adopted : 

Amend  Article  5  by  striking  out  the  word  "  annually  "  in  the 
tenth  line,  and  inserting  the  word  "  biennially." 

Mr.  Hardy  of  Keene.  I  think  there  should  be  a  provision 
somewhere  in  this  Constitution  in  regard  to  the  power  of  the 
legislature  to  make  laws  whereby  towns  and  cities  may  grant 
subsidies,  or  make  over  gifts,  etc.,  to  railroads.  In  looking  it 
over,  I  thought  it  might  properly  come  in  this  section.  This 
section  seems  to  be  to  grant  certain  powers  to  the  legislature. 
I  think,  perhaps,  we  might  restrict  the  legislature.  Of  course 
I  am  willing  to  have  it  done,  but  the  substance  of  what  I  design 
to  introduce  is,  that  the  legislature  shall  have  no  power  to  pass 
laws  whereby  subsidies  can  be  granted  to  railroads,  and  I  have 
prepared  hastily  a  few  lines,  and  move  to  amend  as  follows : 

Add  to  Article  5  the  following  words,  "No  town  or  incorpo- 
rated place  shall  have  the  right,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to 
suffer  their  credit  to  be  used  for  the  especial  benefit  of  any  cor- 
poration, nor  to  raise  money  for  the  purpose  of  loaning  or  giv- 
ing the  same  to  any  corporation,  nor  for  the  taking  of  stock 
therein,  nor  to  issue  bonds  therefor." 

The  gentleman  having  accepted  an  amendment  proposed  by 
Mr.  Morse  of  Portsmouth,  to  add  the  words  "nor  to  issue  bonds 
therefor"— 

Mr.  Hardy.  The  question  whether  the  legislature  has  the 
power  to  make  these  laws  at  the  present  time  has  been  recently 
settled  by  the  supreme  court.  The  question  was  raised  in  the 
county  of  Cheshire,  growing  out  of  the  vote  of  the  city  of  Keene. 
The  court  decided  that  the  law  whereby  the  towns  vote  these 
subsidies  to  railroad  companies  is  constitutional  and  binding. 
Therefore,  that  matter  having  been  decided,  I  propose  this 
amendment. 

Mr.  Smyth  of  Manchester.  I  hope  that  this  amendment  will 
prevail,  for  I  believe  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  almost 
unanimously  desire  it. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  59 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Smith  of  Peterborough,  the  following 
amendment  was  declared  adopted  : 

Amend  Article  9  by  striking  out  the  word  "annually"  in 
the  second  line,  and  inserting  the  word  "  biennially." 

Whereupon,  on  that  question  a  division  was  called  for  by 
Mr.  Whipple  of  Laconia,  and  201  gentlemen  having  voted  in 
the  affirmative  and  6  in  the  negative,  the  affirmative  prevailed, 
and  the  amendment  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Wentworth  of  Concord.  It  occurs  to  me,  before  we 
proceed  any  further,  that  we  should  have  the  sense  of  this  con- 
vention in  regard  to  what  we  call  "  ratable  polls."  I  think  the 
gentleman  from  Moultonborough  [Mr.  Mason]  introduced 
something  now  lying  on  the  table  about  ratable  polls.  I  think, 
in  order  to  proceed  properly  in  this  matter,  we  should  first 
ascertain  what  we  consider  ratable  polls.  I  would  call  for  the 
reading  of  the  resolution  which  the  gentleman  from  Moulton- 
borough presented. 

And  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Mason  being  read — 

Mr.  Smith  of  Peterborough.  I  rise  for  information,  whether 
this  resolution  keeps  young  men  from  voting  who  have  attained 
the  age  of  twenty-one  within  six  months  of  the  time  of  voting. 

The  Chairman.  The  chair  does  not  understand  that  this  de- 
termines the  right  of  who  shall  vote,  but  only  determines  what 
shall  be  the  ratable  polls  as  a  basis  of  representation. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  There  are  a  great  many  ways  in 
which  this  article  may  be  amended  ;  there  have  been  a  great 
many  different  propositions  before  the  people  to  amend  it.  We 
may  amend  it  one  way,  by  deciding  what  shall  be  ratable  polls  ; 
we  may  in  another  way, — and  that  is  the  way  of  the  last  conven- 
tion,— by  increasing  the  number  that  shall  be  required  to  send 
one  representative,  and  still  more  the  number  required  to  send 
a  second.  That  was  not  adopted  by  the  people.  There  is 
another  way  which  has  always  struck  me  as  the  best  way, — 
that  is,  come  right  to  the  point,  and  say  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire shall  be  divided  up  into  a  certain  number  of  districts, 


60  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

as  equal  as  may  be,  each  one  to  be  entitled  to  send  a  cer- 
tain number  of  senators  and  representatives.  Then,  when  each 
party  in  that  district  are  called  to  nominate  their  senator,  they 
would,  at  the  same  time,  nominate  the  representatives  they  are 
entitled  to.  Then,  having  nominated,  they  would  all  go  home, 
and  vote  for  them  just  as  they  do  now,  without  any  inconven- 
ience. Say  the  house  was  composed  of  one  hundred  and  fifty 
members,  and  the  senate  of  thirty.  It  has  always  seemed  to 
me  this  was  the  proper  and  the  best  method  of  getting  at  this 
matter  of  representatives,  both  as  to  the  senate  and  the  house  ; 
but  I  don't  know  as  the  convention  would  agree.  Perhaps  the  peo- 
ple would  not.  The  other  way  has  been  tried  ;  this  never  has,  but 
it  might  not  be  more  successful.  Now  what  I  want  is,  that  this 
committee  of  the  whole  shall  have  some  plain,  square  proposi- 
tion laid  before  them,  upon  which  they  can  all  act  understand- 
ingly  and  act  to  the  point ;  and  I  was  about  to  make  the 
motion  that  we  first  consider  whether  we  will  undertake  to 
change  the  number  of  the  house  of  representatives.  Let  this 
be  first  decided,  Shall  we  undertake  to  change  it  in  any  way? 
and  second,  if  so,  How  will  we  change  it? — and  let  us  discuss 
the  several  principles  together.  In  discussing  the  question  be- 
fore the  convention  in  the  manner  I  suggest,  the  question  of 
increasing  the  senate  would  be  involved,  and  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  consider  that  somewhat.  The  question  would  be,  first, 
whether  we  would  undertake  to  make  any  change  in  the  num- 
ber of  representatives,  and,  second,  in  what  manner  that  change 
shall  be  made. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord,  the  resolution  of  the 
gentleman  from  Moultonborough  was  laid  aside  for  the  pres- 
ent. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough  introduced  the  following  proposi- 
tion : 

That  a  vote  be  taken  in  committee  of  the  whole  upon  the 
four  propositions  following,  to  wit : 

i st.  Shall  the  number  of  representatives  to  the  house  be 
diminished  by  increasing  the  ratio  of  representation? 

2d.  Shall  the  number  of  representatives  to  the  house  be 
diminished  by  districting  the  state  into  representative  districts? 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  6 1 

3d.  Shall  the  number  of  representatives  to  the  house  be 
diminished  bv  diminishing  by  definition  the  number  of  ratable 
polls? 

4th.  Shall  the  number  of  representatives  to  the  house  be 
diminished  by  a  classification  of  all  towns  having  less  than 
one  hundred  and  fifty  ratable  polls? 

Mr.  Scott.  I  think  this  substantially  embodies  all  the  propo- 
sitions that  I  have  heard  from  various  sources  in  regard  to  the 
methods  of  diminishing  the  house  ;  and  I  would  offer  this  as  a 
proposition,  embodying  the  suggestions  of  the  gentleman  from 
Concord  [Mr.  Sargent]. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter.  Probably  no  more  important  ques- 
tion will  come  before  this  convention  than  this — upon  the  sub- 
ject of  representation  of  the  people  in  the  legislature.  I  think 
the  propositions  of  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough  are  very 
distinct  and  wise  ones,  and  we  can  take  the  sense  of  the  com- 
mittee upon  them,  and  it  will  mean  something.  If  we  were  to 
undertake  to  follow  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord [Mr.  Sargent],  we  should  determine  rather  an  abstract 
proposition  than  anything  else,  and  whether  this  convention  or 
whether  the  people  will  reduce  the  representation  depends  on 
the  manner  in  which  it  is  done.  Nobody  will  want  to  vote,  and 
bind  themselves  by  voting,  that  they  will  reduce  the  representa- 
tion without  knowing  how  it  is  to  be  done.  There  is  not  a 
republican  in  this  convention,  nor  is  there  a  republican  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire,  that  would  be  willing  to  reduce  the 
house  of  representatives  one  half,  or  at  all,  if  it  would  be  in  favor 
of  the  other  party  ; — and  just  so  with  the  democrats  :  they  will  not 
have  it  if  it  is  to  be  in  favor  of  the  republicans  ;  and  they  ought 
not  to.  Certainly  it  ought  not  to  be  done.  I  am  not  myself  in  favor 
of  much  reduction  ;  I  believe  in  a  large  house.  I  do  believe  that 
when  you  have  got  a  representation  of  three  hundred  people, — 
when  one  half  of  them  must  of  necessity  be  farmers, — you  can- 
not get  any  bills  for  tunnels,  through  the  Hoosac  Mountains 
or  the  White  Mountains,  through  the  house.  Reduce  the 
house,  and  how  long  before  you  have  the  corruption  that  you 
have  in  New  York? — how  long  before  the  salary  of  the  state 
officials  would   be  doubled? — how  long  before  some  railroad 


62  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

scheme  would  be  adopted,  on  the  ground  of  a  great  public 
good? — and  it  will  go  through  your  legislature  if  lawyers,  doc- 
tors, and  agents  of  factories  compose  it.  They  do  not  look  at 
money  as  the  farmers  of  New  Hampshire  do — the  money  that 
they  earn  before  throwing  it  away.  I  am  in  favor,  therefore, 
of  a  pretty  large  house — a  representation  in  the  popular  body, 
the  majority  of  whom  shall  be  farmers.  Therein  lies  our 
safety.  There  are  other  circumstances  I  propose  to  present  to 
the  convention  at  a  proper  time  ;  but  now  the  proper  question 
is,  whether  we  shall  say  we  will  reduce  the  house.  Who  can 
say  whether  he  will  reduce,  without  knowing  how?  I  do  not 
know.  It  does  not  occur  to  me  now  that  there  is  but  one  way, 
as  the  parties  are  divided  in  this  convention  and  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire,  of  reducing  it  at  all.  If  done  at  all  it  has  got 
to  be  done  justly — in  a  manner  that  both  parties  may  feel 
they  are  not  injured.  It  has  got  to  be  done  that  way,  or  else  it 
cannot  be  done.  Now  we  might  perhaps  define  what  shall  be 
ratable  polls.  I  do  not  know  that  it  would  affect  one  party 
more  than  another  ;  I  do  not  know  that  it  would  give  an  advan- 
tage to  one  or  the  other.  If  I  thought  it  would,  I  would  not 
vote  for  it. 

If  this  motion  were  adopted,  I  do  not  know  how  many 
members  it  would  take  off  of  the  house.  [A  voice — "About 
seventy  !"]  That  is  enough.  I  do  not  want  to  build  a  new  state 
house,  but  I  want  a  large  house,  and  I  want  the  members  to 
come  here  every  year.  Now  I  hope  the  suggestion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Concord  will  not  prevail,  but  that  we  shall 
proceed  to  take  the  vote  upon  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Peterborough.  When  it  is  submitted  to  us  to  say  whether 
or  not  we  will  increase  the  ratio — as,  for  instance,  whether 
there  shall  be  175  or  200  in  a  town  before  they  shall  be  allowed 
a  representative  in  the  legislature — I  know  what  that  is,  and 
I  shall  vote  against  it.  I  want  every  town  to  have  its  just 
representation, — that  is,  make  a  suitable  number  of  ratable 
polls  in  a  town  entitled  to  a  representative.  I  do  not  want 
this  state  divided  into  districts  ;  I  want  to  know  who  my  repre- 
sentative is  ;  I  want  the  town  representation.  I  believe  it  is  the 
best  plan  ever  adopted.  I  believe  there  is  no  such  a  govern- 
ment in  the  world  as  the  town  government,  where  all  the  people 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  63 

come  together,  and  the  very  men  who  earn  the  money  vote  to 
appropriate  it.  They  want  their  representative  to  be  in  the 
legislature,  and  when  he  comes  home  they  want  to  have  him 
tell  what  has  been  done  ; — more  than  that,  if  he  has  not  done 
his  duty,  they  want  to  have  their  hand  upon  him,  and  be  able 
to  tell  him  to  stay  at  home  another  year. 

And  another  thing:  I  think  it  is  very  desirable  that  we  have 
a  large  house.  It  is  a  very  proper  object  of  ambition  for  young 
men  to  take  part  in  the  affairs  of  the  country.  It  makes  the 
young  man  a  better  citizen  ;  it  gives  him  more  self-respect;  it 
is  better  every  way  for  him  to  help  make  the  laws  of  the  coun- 
try ; — he  can  talk  it  over  with  his  children,  in  his  family,  and 
with  his  neighbors.  I  want  a  great  many  of  our  young  men  to 
come  here  and  help  make  the  laws. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport.  I  supposed,  until  I  heard  the  able 
speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Exeter, — a  gentleman  who  has 
had  the  experience  that  he  has  had  in  this  house, — that  he  was 
in  favor  of  diminishing  the  number  of  the  house  in  some  ration- 
al and  proper  way.  I  will  admit,  and  I  will  say  as  much  in  that 
direction  as  the  gentleman  himself,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  ambi- 
tion for  young  men  to  be  representatives  in  the  house  ;  but  the 
question  is,  whether  this  house  is  big  enough  to  educate  the 
whole  state,  and  whether  we  are  willing  to  send  men  in  unnec- 
essary numbers  for  the  purpose  of  educating  them.  Now  I 
agree  with  him  that  I  am  in  favor  of  the  town  system  against 
the  district  system.  I  think  with  him  that  the  towns  ought  to 
be  represented,  and  they  ought  to  have  men  they  can  put  their 
hands  on.  I  think  with  him  that  the  people  of  this  state  are 
wedded  to  the  town  system  and  will  never  abandon  it.  No  mat- 
ter how  much  better  it  might  be,  in  some  respects,  to  district 
the  state,  the  towns  of  this  state  are  wedded  to  the  system,  and 
will  never  abandon  it,  in  my  judgment.  I  do  not  understand 
why  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr.  Sar- 
gent]  is  not  proper  to  be  made  here.  Why  not  first  ascertain 
whether  we  will  diminish  the  house,  or  whether  we  will  indi- 
cate our  purpose  to  do  so,  or  not?  If  we  indicate  that  we  will, 
then  it  remains  to  the  convention  to  say  how  it  shall  be 
done.  But  there  is  another  thing  :  When  I  came  here  I  came  as 
a  citizen  of  the  state.    I  did  not  come  here  as  a  republican,  nor 


64  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

as  a  democrat.  I  came  here  to  know  no  party  distinction,  and 
I  am  going  to  live  through  that  way,  if  God  spares  my  life  ; 
and  I  am  sorry  that  the  eminent  gentleman  was  the  first  man  to 
introduce  "  democrat"  and  "republican."  The  terms  have  been 
introduced — for  what  purpose  I  do  not  know.  I  do  not  under- 
stand, in  making  the  fundamental  law  of  this  state,  that  we  are  to 
know  any  party,  and,  for  myself,  I  will  know  none.  I  say,  from 
the  experience  we  have  had  in  the  house,  and  from  what  I 
know  of  the  sentiment  of  the  people  of  this  state,  they  desire 
that  the  state  shall  be  represented  in  a  certain  proportion  that 
remains  for  the  convention  to  order  and  the  people  to  vote  on. 

Mr.  Whipple  of  Laconia.  I  suppose  that  every  gentleman 
who  has  come  here  understands  something  of  the  wishes  of 
his  constituents,  and,  in  the  vote  on  the  question  whether  the 
legislature  of  the  state  shall  be  reduced  at  all,  will  have  in 
mind  what  he  knows  of  the  sentiments  of  those  who  have  sent 
him  here.  As  to  the  question  whether  this  convention,  repre- 
senting the  popular  sentiment  of  the  people  of  New  Hampshire, 
understand  that  they  sit  here  to  express  an  opinion  on  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  the  house  shall  be  reduced  or  not,  I  take  it  to 
be  well  settled  in  everybody's  mind  that  it  is  to  be,  one  way  or 
the  other ;  and  you  may  doubt  how  much  the  house  shall  be  re- 
duced— you  may  doubt  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  house  shall 
reduced.  But  when  my  friend,  the  General  [Mr.  Marston], 
takes  the  ground  that  you  cannot  vote  whether  you  will  reduce 
the  house  at  all  until  the  mode  in  which  it  is  to  be  reduced  is 
determined,  I  am  compelled  to  differ  with  him.  Will  any  man 
tell  me  how  I  can  decide  whether  I  will  cut  a  custard,  until  I 
know  how  I  am  going  to  eat  it?  Will  any  man  tell  me  how  I 
can  go  to  Fisherville,  until  I  decide  whether  I  am  going  to  go  on 
the  cars  or  by  a  team?  We  know  we  want  to  reduce  this 
house,  but  how  we  will  reduce  it  is  a  subject  for  consideration. 
I  want  to  know  what  members  think  about  it :  then  we  can  go 
to  work  and  reduce  it  in  some  fair  way. 

A  delegate  suggested  that  the  motion  be  amended  by  making 
it  read  "  Is  it  desirable?"  etc. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  I  knew  there  were  those  who  did 
desire  a  reduction  of  representation.     I  thought  we  had  better 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  6$ 

take  the  sense  of  the  convention,  and  find  out,  to  start  with, 
whether  we  want  to  do  anything.  If  we  do  not,  we  will  go 
on  to  the  next  subject ;  if  we  do,  then  we  will  decide  now. 

Mr.  Cram  of  Hampton  Falls.  For  myself,  I  should  like  to 
reduce  the  house.  When  I  came  in  here  and  saw  how  many 
delegates  there  were,  and  found  that  I  could  not  have  a  seat  to 
sit  down  upon,  and  ached  all  the  time,  I  concluded  that  it  was 
best  to  reduce  this  house.  I  can  go  home,  and  my  constituents 
will  justify  me  in  reducing  this  house  a  little — not  a  great  deal ; 
and  if  there  is  a  way  in  which  it  can  be  reduced  a  little,  I  should 
be  happy  to  run  the  risk  of  voting  for  it. 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner.  I  believe  there  is  one  way  to  reduce 
this  house  that  has  not  been  named,  and  it  is  this :  If  you  raise 
the  number  of  ratable  polls  and  legal  voters  to  two  hundred, 
and  class  the  towns  under  one  hundred,  you  will  cut  oft'  on  the 
one  hand  and  affect  a  certain  interest.  If  you  then  increase 
the  number  for  the  next  representation  to  five  hundred,  you  will 
cut  off  the  cities  to  a  certain  extent,  and  thus  even  this  matter 
up.  I  have  made  a  computation,  and  I  think  that,  fixing  the 
number  of  ratable  polls  and  legal  voters  for  the  first  represen- 
tative and  the  next  representative  at  five  hundred,  you  will  get 
a  house  of  two  hundred  or  two  hundred  and  twenty-five.  I 
say  that,  perhaps,  is  worth  looking  at,  and  in  voting  on  this 
question  I  will  vote  to  reduce  the  house,  because  I  believe  that 
proposition  is  desirable. 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua.  I  was  fully  convinced,  by  the  sug- 
gestion of  my  friend  from  Laconia,  that  the  suggestion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Concord  should  prevail.  If  I  had  not  been  so 
convinced,  the  suggestions  of  the  gentleman  from  Warner  would 
have  convinced  me.  The  gentleman  from  Peterborough  has 
brought  forward  four  methods  by  which  it  can  be  reduced  :  the 
gentleman  from  Warner  has  spoken  of  another  method  :  differ- 
ent methods  may  be  presented, — twenty,  fifty,  or  a  hundred.  I 
think  it  is  a  matter  of  economy  and  good  sense  to  pass  upon  the 
suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  and  decide  whether 
we  will  take  any  action  at  all  upon  this  matter,  and  then  to  say 
how  it  shall  be  done. 

Mr.  Slayton  of  Manchester.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  proposition 
5 


66  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  and  I  hope  the  sense  of  this 
committee  will  be  taken  on  the  question.  I  think  a  very  large 
majority  of  the  people  of  the  state  desire  the  house  reduced, 
and  I  think  amongst  those  men  will  be  found  all  those  gentle- 
men who  have  sat  in  the  hot  days  of  July  in  the  legislature. 
Either  we  must  have  a  new  state  house,  a  larger  hall,  or  reduce 
the  representation.  My  idea  was,  that  perhaps  thirty-six  senato- 
rial districts,  with  six  members  of  the  house  from  each  district, — 
which  would  make  the  house  two  hundred  and  sixteen  mem- 
bers,— might  be  reasonable  and  satisfactory,  without  getting  a 
new  state  house.  I  was  sorry  to  see  the  committee,  as  they  did 
by  so  large  a  majority,  enact  that  they  wished  to  sit  but  once  in 
two  years.  The  Vermont  people  are  very  much  sick  of  their 
biennial  sessions.  That  is  the  universal  expression  of  all  my 
friends  in  that  state.  I  was  in  hopes  of  reducing  the  house  and 
keeping  the  sessions  up  each  year.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  propo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  Concord. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord  moved  to  amend  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Peterborough  by  inserting  as  the  first  ques- 
tion the  following : 

I  st.  Is  it  desirable  to  reduce  the  number  of  members  of  the 
house  ? 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter.  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  objec- 
tion to  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord  as  he 
has  modified  it.  To  take  the  vote  in  the  committee  as  to 
whether  it  is  desirable  or  not  is  all  very  well,  but  it  is  a  very 
different  thing  from  taking  a  vote  as  to  whether  it  shall  be  ab- 
solutely diminished,  without  knowing  anything  about  how  it 
shall  be  diminished. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  a  division  was  called  for  by 
Mr.  Whipple  of  Laconia,  whereupon  268  gentlemen  voted  in 
the  affirmative  and  none  in  the  negative,  and  the  affirmative 
prevailed,  and  the  amendment  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill  introduced  the  following  amendment  : 

Amend  Article  9  by  striking  out  all  after  the  word  "  privi- 
leges" in  the  fifth  line,  and  adding  the  words  "having  four 
hundred   inhabitants,   may   elect   one   representative;    if  two 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  6j 

thousand  inhabitants,  may  elect  two  representatives  ;  if  four 
thousand  inhabitants,  may  elect  three  representatives  ;  and  so 
proceeding  in  that  proportion,  making  two  thousand  inhabi- 
tants the  mean  increasing  number  for  every  additional  repre- 
sentative ; — the  number  of  inhabitants  in  each  case  to  be  taken, 
to  be  the  number  shown  by  the  last  preceding  official  census 
taken  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States ;  and  no  towns 
shall  be  so  divided,  or  cities  warded,  as  to  increase  their  ratio 
of  representation. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill.  I  have  no  remarks  to  make  on  the 
proposition.  I  merely  desire  that  it  be  considered  with  the 
other  propositions.  The  effect  is  to  lay  the  basis  on  population 
instead  of  ratable  polls,  as  heretofore. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bartlett  of  Manchester,  ordered  that  the 
committee  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

IN    CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Bell,  chairman,  reported  that  the  committee  of  the  whole 
had  had  under  consideration  so  much  of  Part  Second  of  the 
Constitution  as  relates  to  the  General  Court,  without  determi- 
nation, and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster,  the  convention  ad- 
journed. 

AFTERNOON. 

Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover, 

Ordered,  That  when  the  convention  adjourns  to-day,  it  ad- 
journ to  meet  on  Monday  next,  at  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

The  president  announced  the  following  appointments  as  com- 
mittee on  mileage :  Messrs.  Gustine  of  Keene,  Clark  of  Atkin- 
son, Foss  of  Strafford,  Hodgdon  of  Barnstead,  Coleman  of 
Brookfield,  Lyford  of  Canterbury,  Cilley  of  Manchester,  Alex- 
ander of  Grantham,  Sawtell  of  Lyme,  Aldrich  of  Colebrook. 

Mr.  Wentworth  of  Concord  having  moved  that  the  con- 
vention sro  into  committee  of  the  whole — 


68  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way  for 
a  moment? 

Mr.  Wentworth  having  consented  to  do  so — 

Mr.  Ordway.  I  understand  that  a  resolution  passed  this 
afternoon,  adjourning  over  from  to-day  until  Monday  afternoon  ; 
and  as  very  many  of  us  were  not  present,  I  should  like  the 
privilege  of  calling  up  the  resolution  which  I  offered  with  refer- 
ence to  the  pay  of  members.  I  should  like  to  get  a  vote  on  it. 
I  do  not  think  we  ought  to  adjourn  from  Friday  until  Monday, 
without  knowing  how  much  money  will  be  expended  ;  and  if 
the  gentleman  will  give  way,  I  will  call  up  that  resolution  so 
that  we  can  act  upon  it. 

And  the  gentleman  moved  to  take  from  the  table  that  resolu- 
tion. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  do  not  think  it  an  opportune  time 
to  take  that  resolution  from  the  table.  There  are  very  many 
members  of  the  convention  absent,  and,  as  it  is  a  matter  that 
touches  the  pocket  of  every  individual,  I  should  hope  that  all 
might  be  present  and  act  upon  it. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  motion  was  rejected. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wentworth  of  Concord,  the  convention 
resolved  itself  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  so  much  of  Part 
Second  of  the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  general  court. 

IN    COMMITTEE    OF   THE   WHOLE. 

(Mr.  Davis  of  Amherst  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Hastings  of  Monroe  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

Resolved,  That  all  towns  that  now  have  one  representative 
may  return  the  same ;  all  that  have  two  shall  have  but  one ;  so 
on  with  all  the  larger  towns  and  cities — their  delegation  be 
reduced  one  half:  Provided,  that  if  any  town  or  city  shall  neg- 
lect or  refuse  to  send  a  representative  to  which  they  are 
entitled,  the  money  said  member  would  draw  from  the  state 
treasury,  in  case  of  his  election  and  serving,  shall  be  deducted 
from  the  state  tax  of  said  town. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  69 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth  introduced  the  following  amend- 
ment : 

Amend  Article  9  by  striking  out  the  words  "  ratable  polls" 
wherever  they  occur,  and  substitute  therefor  the  words  "  legal 
voters." 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough.  As  I  understand  the  matter, 
that  is  not  in  order  before  the  committee.  The  object  of  my 
motion  is  to  systematize  the  action  of  the  committee,  so  that 
we  can  take  up  and  pass  upon  the  several  propositions  to  re- 
duce the  house  separately,  and  then  we  will  come  to  some  con- 
clusion in  regard  to  what  the  desire  of  the  committee  is  in 
regard  to  reducing  the  representation  of  the  house  of  represen- 
tatives. I  hope  that  my  motion  will  prevail,  and  that  the  ques- 
tions will  be  passed  upon  in  the  order  in  which  they  occur  in 
that  motion. 

Mr.  Walker  of  Claremont.  I  move  to  take  up  the  third 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough,  because  I 
think  it  is  the  most  practicable  proposition  to  get  before  the 
convention,  or  the  committee  of  the  whole,  for  the  reduction  of 
the  members  of  the  house  of  representatives.  It  seems  to  me 
to  accomplish  the  object  in  a  direct  way.  Some  one  has  said  it 
will  reduce  it  70.  If  it  will  accomplish  that,  why,  I  desire  to 
bring  it  before  the  committee. 

And,  on  the  question  being  stated,  the  motion  was  rejected 
on  division. 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  Mr.  Chairman,  will  you  allow  me 
one  word?  There  are  here  several  propositions  to  diminish 
the  house.  Some  gentlemen  may  be  in  favor  of  one,  and  some 
gentlemen  may  be  in  favor  of  another.  Gentlemen  may  be 
fearful  that  if  one  is  considered  they  will  be  shut  out,  and  they 
will  not  have  any  opportunity  of  having  their  particular  amend- 
ment considered.  Now  I  propose  to  the  committee  that  we 
take  up  one  proposition,  and  debate  it,  and  amend  it,  and  de- 
fine it,  and  do  all  we  need  to  do  with  it,  and  then  lay  it  aside 
without  coming  to  a  vote;  then  take  up  another,  and  do  the 
same  with  that,  until  we  have  got  through  ; — then  we  will 
make  up  our  minds  as  to  which  one  we  will  have. 


JO  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner.     That  is  right. 

The  first  proposition  of  Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough  being  be- 
fore the  committee, 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner  introduced  the  following  amend- 
ments : 

Strike  out  in  the  9th  Article,  after  the  words  "  entitled  to 
town  privileges,"  the  words  "  one  hundred  and  fifty,"  and  insert 
the  words  "  two  hundred." 

Also,  strike  out  in  the  same  article  the  words  "  four  hundred 
and  fifty,"  and  insert  the  words  "  seven  hundred." 

Also,  strike  out  in  the  same  article  the  words  "  making  three 
hundred,"  and  insert  the  words  "  making  five  hundred." 

Also,  in  the  10th  Article,  strike  out  the  words  "  less  than  one 
hundred  and  fifty  ratable  jdoIIs"  and  insert  the  words  "  two  hun- 
dred ratable  polls." 

Mr.  Ordway.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  have  offered 
this  proposition,  and  believe  it  to  be  one  of  the  fairest  that  can 
be  presented  to  this  committee  to  reduce  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives. If  the  gentlemen  here  have  the  People  Hand  Book 
containing  the  vote  of  the  different  towns,  they  will  see  by  look- 
ing at  this  amendment  that  the  towns  that  have  heretofore  been 
allowed  to  send  two  representatives  almost  universally  will  have 
but  one,  and  the  towns  that  have  heretofore  sent  three  repre- 
sentatives will  have  but  two.  In  other  words,  this  will  take  out 
of  the  number  of  representatives  a  sufficient  number  to  make 
room  for  our  friend  [Mr.  Cram  of  Hampton  Falls]  who  spoke 
this  forenoon  ;  it  will  take  out  enough  to  make  room  without 
disturbing  the  political  complexion,  in  my  judgment,  three  votes. 
It  will  accomplish  another  thing, — no  amendment  may  perhaps 
be  necessary  ;  it  will  cause  a  reduction  in  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives by  preventing  a  few  voters  upon  a  special  privilege 
granted  by  the  legislature  from  having  a  member.  Two  hun- 
dred legal  voters  and  ratable  polls  is  as  low  a  number  as  ought 
to  get  representation,  considering  the  large  expense  that  the 
state  has  been  subjected  to  on  account  of  the  meeting  of  the 
legislature.  This  will  curtail  the  representation,  and  prevent 
the  young  men  from  obtaining  the  advantages  which  my  friend 
from  Exeter  [Mr.  Marston]  spoke  of  this  forenoon.     It  will  cut 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  7 1 

off  some  of  those  men,  but  it  will,  at  the  same  time,  give  cor- 
responding advantages  to  those  men  by  cutting  oft'  at  the  other 
end  a  certain  number  in  the  large  towns  and  cities.  The  cities 
need  not  complain  of  this,  for  two  reasons :  first,  they  get  a 
small  advantage  in  increasing  the  number  over  the  small  towns, 
in  the  first  part  of  the  amendment ;  in  the  next  place,  the  cities, 
as  a  general  thing,  send  gentlemen  here  of  more  experience, 
better  prepared  to  exeixise  a  controlling  influence  in  legislation, 
than  the  small  towns  ;  therefore  this  ratio  of  five  hundred  looks 
large.  Gentlemen  will  see  that  the  reason  why  this  should  be 
large  is,  that  we  must  commence  somewhere  to  cut  down  the 
house.  If  you  take  this  house  and  fix  four  hundred  for  the  rep- 
resentation, the  towns  that  have  two  representatives  now  will 
seek,  by  strategy  and  ratable  polls,  to  retain  their  two  represen- 
tatives, but  if  you  change  from  four  hundred  and  fifty  to  seven 
hundred  there  will  be  no  such  opportunity,  and  the  towns  that 
now  have  two  representatives  will  have  one,  and,  as  a  general 
thing,  the  towns  having  three  representatives  will  have  two  ; 
and  the  loss  will  be,  first,  upon  the  small  towns  by  a  few  votes, 
the  large  towns  by  a  surplus  of  votes,  and  by  the  aggregation  of 
members  of  the  legislature  which  some  large  towns  favor.  I 
have  heard  members  say  in  the  last  legislature,  and  at  other 
times,  that  it  was  too  much  work  and  too  cumbersome  to  go 
through  electing  so  many  men.  I  do  believe,  while  this  propo- 
sition may  not  be  perfect,  that  this,  on  some  one  similar,  is  the 
only  one  in  which  you  can  reconcile  the  people  of  this  state  to 
yield  a  large  number  of  members  and  give  us  reduction  in  the 
house. 

Mr.  Walker  of  Claremont.  It  was  precisely  on  that  rock  that 
we  split  in  1850, — disfranchising  those  residing  in  cities.  That 
proposition,  more  than  any  other  that  was  submitted  to  the  peo- 
ple, helped  to  destroy  all  that  the  convention  had  done,  and 
brought  upon  the  convention  the  condemnation  of  the  people. 
I  hope  this  amendment  will  not  prevail,  for  the  reason  I  have 
stated.  The  only  practicable  proposition  before  the  committee, 
in  my  judgment,  is  the  one  to  define  what  constitutes  a  ratable 
poll. 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.      I  should  like  to  inquire  of  the 


72  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

gentleman  from  Warner  whether  he  proposes  to  class  all  the 
small  towns  under  two  hundred,  and  to  take  away  from  the 
legislature  the  power  of  authorizing  the  sending  for  less. 

Mr.  Ordway.  That  is  embraced  in  the  amendment.  The 
clause  "to  take  away"  should  be  added  to  the  Constitution 
somewhere  ;  but  the  amendment  goes  to  this  extent,  that  it 
provides  for  classing  all  towns  with  two  hundred  or  under. 

Mr.  Murray  of  Canaan.  I  would  inquire  of  the  gentleman 
from  Warner  if  he  has  considered  the  question  of  how  many 
towns  in  the  state  there  would  have  to  be  classed.  I  have  been 
through  Rockingham  county,  and  find  sixteen  that  would  have 
to  be  classed. 

Mr.  Ordway.  I  would  answer  the  gentleman  from  Canaan, 
that  I  do  not  think  you  can  get  an  accurate  statement  from  the 
Hand  Book  as  to  the  exact  number,  because  that  only  gives  the 
votes  ;  but  my  judgment  is — I  take  the  check-lists  as  ratable 
polls — there  will  be  a  much  smaller  number  in  Rockingham 
county.  I  am  taking  it  from  the  Hcuid  Book ; — was  it  the  rat- 
able polls,  or  votes,  that  the  gentleman  from  Canaan  examined? 

Mr.  Murray.  It  is  on  the  46th  page.  I  have  not  examined 
whether  it  is  ratable  polls,  or  voters. 

Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter.     The  polls  are  given  on  page  151. 

Mr.  Ordway.  I  think  you  will  find,  by  taking  the  ratable 
polls,  the  number  would  not  be  so  large  ;  but  I  am  aware  there 
would  be  quite  a  number  to  be  classed  in  Rockingham  county. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill.  While  the  gentleman  has  been  speak- 
ing I  have  made  a  little  examination,  and  more  than  one  third 
of  the  towns  in  the  state  will  have  to  be  classed  under  that 
amendment. 

Mr.  Ordway.  I  simply  rise  to  say  that  I  have  not  had  time, 
since  I  came  in  here,  to  go  through  that  computation,  but  if  the 
gentleman's  statement  that  more  than  one  third  would  have 
to  be  classed  is  correct,  I  am  very  much  mistaken  in  going 
through,  as  I  have  been  very  careful. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Portsmouth.  I  apprehend  that  this  question  of 
how  many  towns  should  be  classed  goes  back  to  the  original 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  73 

idea  of  what  is  recognized  as  a  ratable  poll.    It  strikes  me  if  the 
committee  would   establish    what   a   ratable   poll    is,  then  we 
should  have  a  basis  to  go  on  in  regulating  the  number  that  we 
should  have  for  a  representative.     It  strikes  me  that  we  cannot 
do  it  under  the  system  of  the  Hand  Book,  or  the  return  of  votes, 
or  anything  else,  until  we  establish  the  principle  of  what  is  a 
ratable  poll.     My  old  friend  Cram,  an  old  farmer  of  Hampton 
Falls,  is  a  very  observing  man.     He  says  that  his  constituents 
do  not  want  any  reduction  in  the  house.     The  city  of  Ports- 
mouth would  not,  naturally  ;  but,  for  the  sake  of  the  welfare  of 
the  state,  they  are  very  willing  that  no  man  should  be  reckoned 
in  as  a  basis  of  representation  unless  he  is  a  man  that  is  willing 
to  support  the  government  of  the  state  by  paying  his  poll  tax. 
Now,  where  ratable  polls  are  made  up  of  every  person  that 
lives  in  town  over  night  within  a  fortnight  before  the  election, 
— that  is  the  fraud  they  complain  of,  and  that  is  what  they  want 
the  convention  to  correct ;  and  if  that  is  done,    honestly  and 
squarely,  then  we  shall  reduce  the  house  by  a  large  number  of 
members.    Then  the  question  of  classification  is  another  matter 
for  consideration.    We  have  had  from  year  to  year,  as  the  emer- 
gencies of  one  party  or  the  other  required,  petitions  of  unclassed 
towns  for  representation.    That  has  gone  on  until  it  has  become 
a  farce  ; — five  or  six  men,  who  hardly  have  lived  in  a  town, 
have  had  a  representative  in  this  house.     That  is  another  com- 
plaint that  the  people  make,  and  they  want  us  to  correct  that. 
To  correct  a  few  of  these  inaccuracies  and  frauds,  which  have 
been  practised  on  the  people  through  the  emergencies  of  parties, 
is  what  they  want  this  convention  to  do.     They  do  not  want  us 
to  disturb  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  Constitution,  and 
the  people  will  not  submit  to  it.     I  make  these  remarks  now 
because  I  think  we  want,  in  the  first  place,  to  establish  the  prin- 
ciple of  what  the  basis  of  representation  is  to  be. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord,  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Warner  was  laid  aside  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough.  I  still  insist  on  my  suggestion, 
in  order  that  the  committee  may  make  some  progress  :  that  is, 
to  pass  on  these  questions  in  their  order.  Therefore  I  hope, 
before  we  pass  to  the  second  question,  that  the  house  will  give 


74  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

an  expression  as  to  the  first  question.      I  desire  to  take  the 
amendments  from  the  table  in  order,  and  act  upon  them. 

The  Chairman.  The  motion  passed  the  committee  that  that 
amendment  be  laid  aside  ;  then  we  come  back  to  the  original 
proposition,  "  Shall  the  number  of  representatives  to  the  house 
be  diminished  by  increasing  the  ratio  of  representation  ?" 

Mr.  Scott.  The  motion  was,  to  lay  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Warner  on  the  table. 

The  Chairman.  I  understand  not.  It  is  merely  laid  aside, 
and  can  be  called  up.  The  motion  was  to  lay  it  aside  ;  then 
we  recur  to  the  original  proposition. 

Mr.  Scott.  I  desire,  in  some  way,  to  act  on  the  proposition 
of  Mr.  Ordway  at  the  present  time. 

The  Chairman.     The  committee  have  decided  to  lay  it  aside. 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  I  propose  now,  that  we  pass  from 
this  first  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough  and 
take  up  the  next,  unless  there  is  something  further  to  be  said  on 
this  ;  because  it  would  be  manifestly  unfair  to  the  gentleman  from 
Warner,  who  offered  his  amendment  to  this  proposition,  to  lay 
his  amendment  aside  and  then  pass  this  proposition  without  it. 

Mr.  Ordway.  I  supposed,  in  offering  this  amendment,  that 
it  would  be  explained  ;  that  it  would  then  be  laid  aside,  and 
other  propositions  would  be  received  and  laid  aside  ;  and  that 
the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough  would  be 
acted  upon  when  the  committee  had  considered  all  the  proposi- 
tions before  them. 

And  the  first  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough 
was  laid  aside  for  the  present. 

The  second  proposition  of  Mr.  Scott  being  before  the  com- 
mittee was  laid  aside  for  the  present,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Morse 
of  Portsmouth. 

Mr.  Morse.  I  apprehend  that  we  shall  have  great  difficulty 
in  arriving  at  any  conclusion  in  this  way.  As  I  said  before,  we 
have  got  to  commence  to  build  on  a  foundation — to  know  what 
the  representation  is  based  upon  ;  and  therefore  I  move  that  we 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  75 

proceed  to  consider  the  third  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Peterborough,  which  brings  up  the  question  of  what  the  basis 
of  representation  shall  be. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  motion  prevailed,  and  the 
third  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough  being 
before  the  committee, — 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover  introduced  the  following  proposition  : 

The  basis  of  representation  shall  be  upon  the  ratable  polls,  to 
be  determined  by  the  number  of  persons  last  assessed  in  the 
towns  and  who  shall  have  paid  their  taxes,  and  persons  who 
shall  have  arrived  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  after  the  said 
assessment,  and  such  persons  as  are  naturalized. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  This  is  a  very  difficult  question,  and  one  in 
connection  with  the  number  of  representatives,  which  has  been 
the  great  trouble  in  all  constitutional  conventions  that  we  have 
had  in  this  state.  I  have  talked  with  my  constituents  consider- 
ably about  this  matter,  and  I  know  that  they  are  in  favor  of 
having  something  done.  I  have  talked  with  members  of  the 
convention,  and  I  am  satisfied  that  the  sentiment  of  this  con- 
vention is  that  the  representation  must  be  upon  the  basis  of 
ratable  polls,  and  that  we  must  give  some  definition  to  the 
term  "  ratable  polls."  I  have  examined  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Moultonborough  [Mr.  Mason],  and,  taking 
that  as  in  part  the  basis,  I  have  constructed  the  proposition  just 
read,  and  I  will  read  it  again.  "  The  basis  of  representation 
shall  be  upon  the  ratable  polls,  to  be  determined  by  the  num- 
ber of  persons  last  assessed  in  the  towns  and  who  shall  have 
paid  their  taxes,  and  persons  who  shall  have  arrived  at  the  age 
of  twenty-one  years  after  the  said  assessment,  and  such  persons 
as  are  naturalized."  Now,  gentlemen,  we  all  have  our  different 
theories.  That  does  not  answer  my  mind  personally,  if  I  were 
to  fix  it  as  I  would  like  to  have  it  done  myself;  but  we  meet 
here,  gentlemen,  not  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  our  per- 
sonal ideas  of  this  matter,  because  we  have  about  as  many 
views,  perhaps,  as  there  are  members  in  this  convention, — at 
least,  there  are  a  great  many  propositions  before  this  convention 
or  committee.     We  must  lay  aside  all  these  personal  views  of 


?6  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

our  own,  and  try  to  arrive  at  something  which  the  people  will 
accept.  That  is  the  object  of  making  the  amendments.  And 
that  thing  we  must  do,  or  our  work  will  come  to  naught.  I  have 
not  figured  up  to  see  how  much  this  will  reduce  the  number  of 
representatives  in  the  house,  but  I  know  it  must  reduce  it  very 
considerably.  It  has  very  many  advantages.  In  the  first  place, 
it  dispenses  with  the  machinery  of  putting  the  names  of  the  rat- 
able polls  upon  the  back  of  the  check-lists,  and  certifying  to 
them  ; — you  have  only  to  turn  to  your  taxes  or  your  assessment 
of  the  preceding  year,  and  see  who  have  paid  their  taxes ;  and 
if  a  man  has  a  right  to  vote,  he  should  be  willing  to  pay  for  it 
by  paying  his  poll  tax.  It  is  certain,  it  is  positive,  it  is  a  thing 
about  which  there  can  be  no  mistake  ;  and  I  submit  that  it  is  the 
most  definite  and  most  certain,  and  will  reduce  the  house  to  a 
very  proper  number,  and  will  answer  the  purpose,  and  will 
meet  the  approbation  of  our  constituents. 

Mr.  Murray  of  Canaan.  I  do  not  know  as  we  exactly  un- 
derstand what  the  proposition  is  here.  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Dover  it  he.  means  by  the  proposition  this  :  in 
the  first  place,  that  the  ratable  polls  shall  be  persons  twenty-one 
years  of  age — persons  who  have  been  naturalized  and  persons 
who  have  been  taxed. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I  will  answer  the  gentleman.  I  do  not  know 
that  I  can  answer  it  any  better  than  the  proposition  itself: 
"  The  basis  of  representation  shall  be  upon  the  ratable  polls." 
No  man,  no  person,  who  is  not  twenty-one  years  of  age,  is  a  rata- 
ble poll — that  answers  the  first  question.  "  To  be  determined 
by  the  number  of  persons  last  assessed  in  the  towns  and  who 
shall  have  paid  their  taxes,  and  persons  who  shall  have  arrived 
at  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  after  the  said  assessment," — 
that  is  to  say,  if  the  tax  was  assessed  in  1876,  in  March,  or  at 
such  time  as  it  may  be  found  convenient  to  do  that  work,  and 
the  election  should  be  in  November,  you  would  take  the  per- 
sons assessed  in  March  and  who  have  paid  their  taxes  by  the 
first  of  November,  or  by  the  time  of  election,  and  all  persons 
who  shall  have  arrived  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  after  that 
assessment  was  made  and  up  to  the  time  of  election,  whose 
right  to  vote  has   accrued  to  them  after  the  assessment,  and 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  JJ 

excluding  persons  not  naturalized — that  is,  all  persons  who  are 
naturalized  to  be  counted  in. 

Mr.  Stickney  of  Exeter.  I  would  inquire  of  the  gentleman 
from  Dover  whether,  according  to  his  proposition,  people  who 
are  over  seventy  years  of  age  would  be  considered  ratable 
polls. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I  understand,  and  I  think  I  am  right  about  it, 
but  there  are  a  great  many  selectmen  here  who  do  this  busi- 
ness and  know  about  it, — I  understand  that  persons  over  sev- 
enty years  of  age  are  not  taxed  for  a  poll-tax  ;  and  if  not  taxed, 
they  should  not  be  reckoned  in  the  count  for  representation. 
Do  I  answer  the  gentleman  ? 

Mr.  Quarles  of  Ossipee.  Suppose  that  the  tax  is  assessed 
illegally.  As  I  understand  the  resolution,  it  is  only  our  ratable 
polls  who  have  been  assessed  and  have  paid  the  tax.  Now,  then, 
suppose  the  selectmen  of  a  town  should  have  made  an  illegal 
tax,  consequently  the  inhabitants  of  that  town  are  not  bound  to 
pay  that  tax,  therefore  would  you  disfranchise  them?  I  think 
not,  gentlemen.  I  think  the  provision  should  be  something 
like  this  :  That  the  ratable  poll,  so  far  as  the  taxation  was  con- 
cerned, should  be  one  who  had  paid  his  poll-tax,  or  the  poll-tax 
against  him  legally  assessed,  and  not  all  the  tax,  but  who  shall 
have  paid  the  poll-tax  legally  assessed  against  him  ;  because,  if 
it  is  not  legal  he  would  not  want  to  pay. 

Mr.  Fowler  of  Pembroke.  I  do  not  see  how  a  man,  unless 
all  of  his  tax  is  paid,  can  be  said  to  have  paid  his  poll-tax. 
The  poll-tax  is  assessed  with  the  other  tax,  and  a  man  must 
pay  all  his  tax  before  the  day  of  election,  or  else  the  select- 
men cannot  tell  whether  he  has  paid  his  poll-tax  or  not.  A 
man  is  not  taxed  for  a  poll-tax  separately,  consequently  he 
must  pay  all. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  In  answer  to  the  gentleman  :  I  do  not  wish  to 
keep  the  floor  all  the  time,  but  I  understand  that  is  a  very 
good  clause, — helping  the  collector  to  collect  his  taxes ;  and 
every  man  who  wants  to  come  to  the  polls  and  vote  should 
have  made  a  clean  thing  of  it,  and  paid  all  his  taxes.  That  is 
the  way  the  thing  strikes  me.     There  is  one  thing  I  omitted  to 


?8  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

say,  and  if  the  committee  will  pardon  me  I  will  say  it, — that  is, 
this  should  be  borne  in  mind,  this  resolution  in  no  way  affects 
the  right  of  any  man  to  vote  :  it  is  simply  whether  he  shall  be 
counted  in  making  up  the  number  of  representatives  that  the 
town  shall  have.  It  does  not  disfranchise  anybody,  but  only 
determines  who  shall  be  counted  for  the  purpose  of  making  up 
the  number  of  representatives  to  which  the  town  or  ward  should 
be  entitled. 

Mr.  Fowler  of  Pembroke.  I  would  like  to  ask  whether  the 
gentleman  intended  to  include  or  exclude  persons  over  seventy  ? 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster.  Persons  over  seventy  years  of  age 
are  not  taxed  for  polls  ;  therefore  they  are  not  included. 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth  moved  his  proposition  as  an 
amendment  to  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Dover. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Spring  of  Lebanon,  ordered  that  the 
committee  of  the  whole  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to 
sit  again. 

IN    CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Davis  of  Amherst,  chairman,  reported  that  the  commit- 
tee of  the  whole  had  had  under  consideration  so  much  of  Part 
Second  of  the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  general  court,  with- 
out determination,  and  asked  leave  to  sit  again. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth,  the  convention  ad- 
journed. 


MONDAY,  December  ii,  1876. 

The  convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  president  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  chaplain. 

The  journal  was  read  and  approved. 

Mr.  Bruce  of  Dover.     I  read   from  Saturday's  paper  of  the 
death  of  an  honored  citizen  of  Dover.     I  refer  to  the  death  of 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  79 

the  Hon.  Daniel  M.  Christie, — a  good  citizen  and  true  states- 
man, well  known  to  most  of  those  present,  more  particularly  to 
those  of  his  own  profession  and  those  who  have  walked  with 
him  in  the  course  of  life.  I  know  there  are  others  present  who 
can  testify  better  as  to  his  honorable  qualities  than  I  can  my- 
self. I  had  known  him  for  thirty  years  as  a  gentleman  of  high 
integrity  of  character,  well  known  in  all  the  walks  of  life, 
whose  voice  has  been  heard  within  this  house,  and  who  was  the 
compeer  of  those  honored  sons  of  New  Hampshire  whose  faces 
adorn  these  walls, — men  high  in  the  profession.  And,  out  of 
respect  to  the  honored  dead,  as  we  are  to  close  this  day  with 
but  little  before  us,  I  now  move  an  adjournment. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  As  a  citizen  of  Dover,  I  do  not  feel 
that  I  ought  to  remain  silent  on  this  occasion.  A  motion  of 
this  character  in  respect  to  the  decease  of  a  private  citizen  is 
unusual,  but  the  circumstances  of  this  occasion,  I  think,  will 
fully  justify  the  proposed  action.  Mr.  Christie  died  at  about 
eight  o'clock  on  Friday  evening,  at  the  ripe  age  of  eighty-six 
years,  one  month,  and  twenty-three  days,  having  been  born  in 
1790,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  October.  He  lived  to  a  good 
old  age,  and  to  within  one  week  of  his  death  he  was  in  his 
usual  health.  From  a  member  of  his  family,  I  learned  that  he 
seemed  to  be  impressed  on  Thanksgiving  Day  with  the  near  ap- 
proach of  the  time  when  he  should  pass  away.  He  was  taken 
sick  on  Friday  morning.  Sunday  he  was*  better,  so  that  he 
left  his  room  and  came  down  stairs,  and  was  about  during  the 
day  with  his  family.  He  retired  at  night,  and  on  Monday 
morning  was  not  as  well ;  lingered  until  Friday  evening, 
about  eight  o'clock,  and  expired,  as  it  might  be  said,  by  simply 
stopping  breathing — no  struggle,  no  effort ;  in  fact,  his  breath 
was  gone  before  it  was  fully  realized.  Mr.  Christie  was  a  veiy 
laborious  man  in  his  profession.  His  industry  was  one  of  his 
particular  characteristics.  He  always  made  long  and  diligent 
days.  He  was  a  man  of  very  prudent  and  frugal  habits,  and 
thereby  laid  aside  what  we  might  say  would  be  a  large  fortune 
in  any  sphere  in  life — certainly  in  the  practise  of  the  law  in 
New  Hampshire.  He  was  always  a  man  who  was  kind  to  his 
family  ;  always  with  his  family  when  not  engaged  in  his  profes- 
sional duties ;  not  particularly  marked  for  his  social  qualities, 


80  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

although  kind  and  gentle.  He  certainly  had  arrived  at  a  posi- 
tion in  his  profession  which  has  been  surpassed,  probably,  by 
no  man  in  New  Hampshire.  I  think  I  may  well  and  truly  say, 
that  a  great  and  good  man  has  passed  away.  I  second  the  gen- 
tleman's motion. 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  motion  prevailed, 
and  the  convention  adjourned. 


TUESDAY,  December  12,  1876. 

The  convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  president  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  chaplain. 

The  journal  was  read  and  approved. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Murray  of  Canaan,  the  following  resolu- 
tion was  adopted, — a  modification  of  the  same,  moved  by  Mr. 
Fisher  of  Walpole,  having  been  accepted  by  Mr.  Murray  : 

Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  state  be  requested  to  furnish 
to  this  convention  a  printed  tabulated  statement  of  the  popula- 
tion, ratable  polls,  legal  voters,  and  number  of  votes  cast  for 
governor  at  the  last  election. 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua  moved  that,  at  the  usual  time  of 
adjournment  this  afternoon,  the  convention  take  a  recess  to 
some  convenient  hour  in  the  evening. 

Mr.  Ramsdell.  It  seems  to  be  agreed  upon  on  all  hands  that 
the  business  of  this  convention  should  be  brought  to  a  close 
this  week,  if  possible.  It  seems  also  to  be  agreed,  that,  in  order 
to  have  the  business  of  the  convention  well  in  hand,  so  that  the 
committees  may  have  some  opportunity  at  the  close  of  the  week 
to  work,  it  is  necessary  to  have  one  or  more  evening  sessions.  I 
am  informed  by  the  sergeant-at-arms  that  he  apprehends  that, 
by  means  of  an  additional  stove  which  he  is  about  to  have  put 
in,  we  shall  be  comfortable  during  the  latter  part  of  the  day,  if 
we  are  not  this  morning.     I  trust  the  motion  will  prevail. 

Upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  motion  was  adopted. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  8  I 

The  following  resolution,  introduced  by  Mr.  Eastman  of 
Hampstead,  was  rejected  : 

Resolved,  That  no  proposition  for  amending  the  Constitution 
of  this  state  shall  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  their  accept- 
ance, unless  it  receives  two  thirds  of  the  votes  of  this  conven- 
tion. 

The  following  resolution,  introduced  by  Mr.  Mason  of  Moul- 
tonborough,  was  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table  until  that  part  of 
the  Constitution  to  which  it  relates  is  before  the  convention  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  should  be  so  amended  as 
that  the  judges  of  probate,  registers  of  probate,  sheriffs,  and 
county  judges  or  commissioners,  shall  be  chosen  by  a  plurality 
of  votes  in  the  several  counties,  and  shall  hold  their  offices  for 
three  years. 

Mr.  Fowler  of  Pembroke  introduced  the  following  resolution, 
which  was  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table  until  the  appropriate  part 
of  the  Constitution  was  before  the  convention  : 

Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  that  the  Constitution  be  so 
amended  as  to  provide  for  a  division  by  the  legislature  of  the 
state  into  thirty  senatorial  districts,  as  nearly  equal  in  popula- 
tion as  maybe  without  dividing  towns  or  cities,  each  district  to 
elect  one  senator  and  six  representatives  to  the  general  court. 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster  introduced  the  following  questions 
for  the  consideration  of  the  convention,  which  was  ordered  to 
lie  on  the  table  until  the  appropriate  part  of  the  Constitution 
was  before  the  convention — to  wit : 

Is  it  expedient  to  reduce  the  house  of  representatives  to  not 
less  than  150  nor  more  than  200  members? 

Is  it  expedient  to  elect  the  members  of  the  house  by  district? 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord  moved  that  the  convention  resolve 
itself  into  committee  of  the  whole,  on  so  much  of  Part  Second 
of  the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  executive  department. 

Mr.  Sargent.     My  reason   for  this  motion  is  this:  The  most 

important  point — the  point  which  is  evidently  to  take  most  of 

our  time  and  attention,  and  upon  which  there  may  be  the  most 

to  be  said — is  this  matter  of  representation  in  the  house  and 

6 


82  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

senate.  Now,  we  have  just  ordered  a  certain  document  from 
the  secretary  of  state,  to  be  printed,  which  bears  directly  upon 
that  point — more  directly  than  upon  any  other — and  until  we 
get  those  statements,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  cannot  proceed  to 
act  with  so  good  an  understanding  of  the  subject  as  we  can  if 
we  wait  until  we  get  them  ;  and  we  can  just  as  well  proceed  to 
the  other  part  of  the  business,  and  take  up  various  other  ques- 
tions connected  with  the  Constitution,  and  let  this  matter  of 
representation  lie  until  we  get  the  documents.  There  may  be 
various  other  resolutions  introduced  in  regard  to  that  matter. 
When  we  get  the  propositions  all  before  us,  and  the  facts  per- 
taining thereto,  we  can  act  more  understandingly. 

Upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  motion  was  adopted. 

IN    COMMITTEE     OF     THE    WHOLE. 

(Mr.  Burns  of  Lancaster  in  the  chair.) 
The  clerk  having  read  so  much  of  Part  Second  of  the  Consti- 
tution as  relates  to  the  executive  department, 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Spring  of  Lebanon,  the  following  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  the  last  nine  words  of  Article  42  be  stricken 
out,  to  wit,  "  and  unless  he  shall  be  of  the  Protestant  re- 
ligion." 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill  moved  to  amend  Article  42  by  strik- 
ing out  the  word  "  majority"  wherever  it  occurs,  and  inserting 
the  word  "plurality." 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  This  is  simply  a  question  of  hav- 
ing a  majority  or  plurality  elect,  and  I  hope  the  committee  will 
proceed  to  act  thereon  without  any  unnecessary  delay. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Farmington.  It  occurs  to  me  that  we  are 
safer  in  this  state  by  standing  on  majorities  than  on  pluralities. 
I  refer  to  the  experience  of  every  man  in  this  house  in  regard 
to  this  matter.  I  point  to  the  experience  of  this  state  and  this 
country  in  regard  to  this  matter.  Are  we  not  safer — is  the 
government  not  safer — in  standing  on  majorities  than  on  plu- 
ralities? I  beg  of  the  committee  to  think  seriously  of  this  mat- 
ter before  they  vote  thereon. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  83 

Ami  the  question  being  stated,  a  division  was  called  for ; 
and  47  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  affirmative  and  133  in 
the  negative,  the  amendment  was  declared  rejected. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Page  raised  the  point  of  order  that  there 
was  no  quorum  voting. 

The  point  of  order  being  sustained,  and  a  quorum  being 
manifestly  present, 

The  question  was  stated  again,  and  41  gentlemen  having 
voted  in  the  affirmative  and  177  in  the  negative,  the  negative 
prevailed,  and  the  amendment  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover  moved  the  following  amendment  to 
Article  43  : 

Strike  out  the  word  "  annually  "  wherever  it  occurs,  and  in- 
sert the  word  "  biennially." 

Mr.  McDufly  of  Rochester.  I  hope  the  amendment  will  not 
be  adopted.  I  am  aware  that  this  committee  has  voted,  by  a 
large  majority,  in  favor  of  biennial  sessions  ;  but  the  people,  in 
response  to  the  action  of  the  convention  of  1S50,  voted  five 
to  one  against  biennial  sessions.  The  people  of  this  state  look 
as  favorably  on  frequent  sessions  of  the  legislature  as  they  do 
upon  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  and  I  hope  this  state  will  adhere 
to  frequent  sessions  of  the  legislature.  I  believe  that  no  state 
has  a  more  economical  government  than  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  I  believe  this  is  so  because  of  our  frequent 
sessions.  If  we  establish  a  system  of  biennial  sessions,  the  ten- 
dency will  be  to  prolong  them  until  the  new  system  will  be 
very  much  more  expensive  than  the  old  one.  This  system  of 
biennial  elections  and  sessions  will  open  the  door  to  a  great 
many  evils,  and  all  the  objections  to  annual  elections  and  ses- 
sions will  vanish  into  thin  air  beside  the  objections  that  can  be 
raised  to  having  sessions  every  two  years. 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner.  It  seems  to  me,  that,  while  the  gen- 
tleman who  was  last  up  has  made  a  very  good  argument  in 
favor  of  restricting  the  amount  of  pay  of  a  corporation  as  well 
as  the  officers  of  the  state,  he  omits  to  state  a  very  important 
fact :  that  the  people  of  this  state,  at  the  present  time,  are  sur- 


84  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

feited  with  elections ;  that  they  are  worn  out,  exhausted,  and 
tired  of  elections  ;  that  hardly  one  annual  election  is  over  with,  be- 
fore, in  most  close  town,  they  have  to  commence  the  campaign 
for  the  next ;  and  when  there  are  two  elections,  as  occurred  in 
the  present  year,  it  occupies  all  the  time.  Now  it  seems  to  me, 
if  the  same  amount  of  labor  and  expenditure  of  money  was  put 
into  some  charitable  fund  every  other  year,  that  a  very  large 
fund  would  accumulate  by  having  biennial  elections  and  bien- 
nial sessions.  I  should  not  want  any  larger  fund  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  poor  of  this  state,  than  to  have  the  fund  that  would 
accrue  to  a  charitable  body  by  this  change  of  elections  to  every 
other  year.  I  sincerely  hope  that,  whatever  else  we  do,  we  shall 
have  one  year  of  peace,  when  neighbors  can  look  into  each 
others'  faces,  and  feel  that  they  do  not  know  whether  they  are 
republicans  or  democrats.  I  believe,  as  a  measure  of  peace  and 
good  fellowship,  the  amendment  should  prevail. 

Mr.  Slayton  of  Manchester.  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words  on 
this  subject.  I  will  say  this :  I  had  no  doubt  but  that  the  gen- 
tleman from  Warner  would  favor  biennial  elections  in  this  state. 
But  let  him  look  into  the  next  line  but  one,  and  amend  that. 
If  he  struck  out  the  word  "March"  and  inserted  "November," 
we  should  have  but  one.  I  hope  that  the  amendment  will  not 
prevail.  I  am  against  a  biennial  election,  and  I  hope  the  mo- 
tion will  not  prevail.  So  far  as  I  can  hear,  the  people  are  all 
desirous  of  retaining  the  annual  election. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Farmington.  I  believe  that  the  people  in 
my  section  are  all  in  favor  of  the  measure — they  are  in  favor  of 
a  biennial  election.  We  are  tired  of  annual  elections.  We  are 
tired  of  this  incessant  warfare,  and  we  should  be  glad  to  have 
a  state  of  peace  for  a  space  of  time,  and  all  I  can  say  of  this 
matter  is,  let  us  have  our  election  once  in  two  years.  My  voice 
is  for  peace. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Putnam  of  Warren  moved  the  following  amendment  to 
Article  42  : 

Strike  out  the  word  "March"  wherever  it  occurs,  and  insert 
the  word  "  November." 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  85 

Mr.  McDuffy  of  Rochester.  Mr.  President,  I  hope  that  this 
amendment  will  not  he  adopted,  for  these  reasons :  It  looks  to 
me,  in  the  first  place,  like  imitating  other  states.  I  do  not  like 
to  be  an  imitator,  or  to  look  like  an  imitator;  I  would  like, 
rather,  that  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  should  stand  as  fixed, 
alone,  in  the  time  of  her  elections,  than  to  be  lost  in  the  crowd 
of  November  elections.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  the  people  are 
habituated  to  the  present  system.  A  change  sometimes  breaks 
the  habits  of  a  whole  life.  In  time  we  become  accustomed  to 
habits  that  maybe  injurious,  or  bad,  but  we  do  not  like  to  have 
them  changed,  even  if  bad.  This  may  be  a  bad  habit — the 
present  time  of  holding  our  election.  And,  lastly,  I  am  opposed 
to  this  amendment  because  I  do  not  believe  it  is  at  all  essential, 
and  I  believe  the  work  of  this  convention  should  be  limited  'to 
those  changes  which  are  essential,  and  demanded  by  the  people. 
I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  person  in  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire that  will  vote  against  the  action  of  this  convention,  sim- 
ply because  it  neglects  to  change  the  time  of  the  elections  from 
March  to  November  ;  whereas,  I  believe  j  that  the  whole  work 
of  this  convention  will  be  of  no  use,  and  many  people  will  be 
induced  to  vote  against  it,  if  the  time  of  elections  is  changed 
to  November. 

Mr.  Slayton  of  Manchester.  One  of  the  chief  reasons  we  do 
want  our  elections  in  November  is,  we  cease  to  have  a  represent- 
ative in  congress  March  4,  and  our  state  is  without  representa- 
tion in  the  lower  house  until  the  second  Tuesday  of  March, — 
the  time  of  election  as  at  present  provided. 

Mr.  Fisher  of  Walpole.  There  is  one  thing  I  wish  to  say,  and 
that  is  this — you  can  call  it  an  argument  in  favor  of  or  against 
a  November  election;  I  have  nothing  to  say  on  that  ground: 
If  you  have  your  election  in  the  fall  for  state  officers,  you  must 
have  another  in  the  spring  for  doing  your  town  business  ;  we 
have  got  to  have  it  every  year,  therefore  we  have  two  town- 
meetings.  I  would  say,  in  the  states  where  it  has  been  tried  it 
takes  away  the  interest  in  both  of  them,  so  that  the  attendance 
is  generally  very  small.  I  do  not  know  what  bearing  this  may 
have  in  your  minds  ;  I  will  not  attempt  to  say  ;  I  merely  speak 
of  this  to  intimate  what  the  effect  may  be  in  New  Hampshire. 


86  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

Mr.  Putnam  of  Warren.  I  think  the  suggestion  of  the  gen- 
tleman who  has  just  taken  his  seat  is  a  very  strong  argument 
why  we  ought  to  make  this  amendment.  I  believe  that  the  peo- 
ple in  a  town  should  hold  their  election  at  a  different  time  of 
the  year  than  the  one  when  they  elect  their  state  officers.  We 
all  know,  especially  those  who  have  resided  in  towns  where  the 
elections  are  particularly  close,  that  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
select  the  best  men  to  take  care  of  the  town  interests.  Now  I 
am  in  favor  of  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  for  this  rea- 
son :  that  we  shall  thus  have  a  separate  mode,  if  we  should 
provide  for  one,  where  we  can  transact  business  in  a  quiet  way, 
without  having  this  excitement,  this  constant  stirring  up  of  the 
people  of  New  Hampshire.  It  is  not,  perhaps,  a  matter  of 
complaint  in  the  town  where  I  reside,  because,  as  you  are 
aware,  it  is  a  strong  town,  and  both  political  parties,  as  you 
may  know,  have  been  represented  on  our  board  of  town  offi- 
cers, and  we  have  been  able  to  place  the  best  men  in  office  ;  but 
in  towns  that  are  politically  close  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  ob- 
tain the  best  men  for  offices  of  political  trust.  I  am  in  favor 
for  another  reason,  another  consideration  :  it  is  utterly  impossi- 
ble to  bring  men  out  at  that  time,  especially  if  we  have  a  snow- 
storm just  about  that  period.  Why,  only  a  few  years  ago,  the 
vote  of  one  town  in  New  Hampshire  was  cut  down  one  third 
on  account  of  a  snow-storm  a  few  days  previous.  And  I  am 
also  in  favor  of  this  change  in  the  time  of  elections  from  March 
to  November,  because  I  think  that  the  people  of  New  Hamp- 
shire are  in  favor  of  this  amendment.  I  think  that  the  conven- 
tion ought  to  submit  to  the  people  the  amendment  which  I  have 
proposed. 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was 
adopted. 

Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord  moved  to  strike  out  the  word  "June" 
in  the  sixth  line  of  Article  42,  and  insert  the  word  "January." 

Mr.  Gallinger.  I  will  detain  the  committee  but  one  mo- 
ment in  the  advocacy  of  the  proposed  amendment-  I  am  not 
strenuous,  however.  I  will  say  to  the  committee  that  this 
change  should  be  made  to  January  instead  of  June.  It  is  a  self- 
evident  fact  that  cannot  possibly  be  controverted,  if  we  have 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  87 

our  election  in  November,  as  we  have  just  voted  to  do,  we 
must  have  our  meeting  of  the  legislature  at  some  other  time 
than  June.  It  is  possible  February  is  a  better  month.  My  own 
preference  is  January.  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  necessary  on 
this  occasion  to  offer  a  single  argument  in  favor  of  this  change. 
The  change  is  demanded.  We  cannot  have  our  election  in 
November  and  have  our  legislature  in  June.  [A  voice — "Why 
not?"]  I  think  it  is  too  far  off'.  But,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  it  is 
necessary  to  enter  into  an  argument  against  the  holding  of  our 
legislature  in  June,  I  am  prepared  to  appeal  to  every  gentleman 
who  has  ever  been  compelled  to  sit  in  this  hall  during  the  last 
of  the  legislative  session.  Why,  upon  other  and  higher  grounds 
the  change  is  desirable.  I  think  that  any  gentleman  who  has  oc- 
cupied a  seat  in  this  house  during  the  latter  part  of  June,  and 
found  that  every  measure  submitted  to  the  house,  however  im- 
portant it  may  have  been,  could  not  possibly  be  debated  for 
five  minutes  without  a  tumult  which  the  speaker  was  unable 
to  control, — I  think  that  every  gentleman  who  has  had  to  pre- 
sent a  motion  during  that  period  would  say  that  some  other 
time  is  preferable.  And  we  are  aware,  I  suppose,  that  three 
fourths  of  those  that  come  here  to  represent  their  constituents 
have  their  hay  at  home,  and  are  determined  to  return  home 
and  save  their  crops,  which  is  proper ;  but  they  cannot  do  it 
and  have  every  subject  properly  acted  upon  ;  and  every  gentle- 
man who  has  had  experience  in  this  house  will  admit  it.  And 
I  tell  you,  gentlemen,  that  some  of  the  crudest  laws  that  have 
gone  out  of  this  house  for  the  past,  few  years,  have  gone  out  for 
the  reason  that  no  man  was  ready  at  that  time  to  offer  a  word 
against  the  measure  in  the  last  few  hours  of  the  session.  That 
is  the  reason,  in  my  mind,  why  these  measures  have  passed. 
There  are  other  reasons.  I  do  believe  that  our  elections  occur- 
ring in  November,  the  meeting  of  our  legislature  ought  not  to 
be  so  far  oft' as  the  month  of  June.  On  that  I  may  be  mis- 
taken. It  is  my  own  opinion  ;  and  I  trust  that  the  change  may 
be  made  for  the  month  of  December,  January,  or  February. 
For  that  reason,  I  offer  the  proposed  amendment. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  am  about  to  move  an  amendment, 
that  the  words  "  second  Wednesday  in  May  "  be  substituted  ; 
but  I  do  not  imagine  that  this  will  wholly  obviate  the  difficulty 


88  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

which  the  gentleman  speaks  of  as  attending  the  last  part  of  the 
session.  It  will  be  a  very  convenient,  comfortable,  and  pleas- 
ant time,  it  seems  to  me,  for  everybody  to  attend :  it  will  give 
abundant  time  to  close  the  business  of  the  house,  so  that  our 
farmers  can  go  home  in  season  to  attend  to  their  haying.  I 
make  this  motion  because  I  heard  several  gentlemen,  the  other 
day,  when  we  were  approaching  the  question,  express  a  prefer- 
ence for  that  time,  and  I  have  heard  several  since. 

Mr.  Wheeler  moved  to  amend  the  amendment,  by  striking 
out  the  word  "January,"  and  inserting  the  words  "  the  second 
Wednesday  of  May." 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport.    I  suppose  that  we  propose  to  make 
this  change  in  the  time  of  holding  the  elections  from  March  to 
November,  and  I  am  in  favor  of  voting  for  the  time  suggested 
by  the  gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr.  Gallinger]  for  the  assem- 
bling of  the  legislature.     I  have  thought  the  matter  over  some. 
I  thought  the  first  of  December  would  be  a  fine  time,  and  then 
it  occurred  to  me  that  the  holidays  would  come  in,  and  the  ses- 
sion would  be  broken  in  that  manner.    Then  I  went  to  the  next 
month.     I  want  to  get  the  time  of  the  session  pretty  near  the 
time  of  election,  because,  if  we  do  not,  there  will  be  time  for 
political  corruption  and   bribery,    and  we   want  to  get  a    leg- 
islature that    is    free    from    the   influence    of   political   corrup- 
tion.     Another    reason    for  January:     I    have    been     in    this 
house  when  I  have  been  in  a  perfect  state  of  perspiration  on 
account  of  the  heat.     I  have  been  here  when  the  blood  came 
to  my  head  so  that  I  have  had  to  sit  down.     But  no  matter 
for  that.     I  thought  it  would  be  a  good   time   to  commence 
in  January,  in  the  beginning  of  the  year,  when  we  are  form- 
ing good  resolutions.     We  do  not  carry  them  out  always,  but 
they  do  us  good  at  the  time  ;  and   I  think  it  would  be  a   good 
time  to  commence  the  session.     And  then,  again,  I  am  against 
commencing  the  session  in  May,  because  we  are  then  just  get- 
ting out  of  our  winter  quarters,  like  the  bears  from  their  dens  ; 
and  the  brain  is  not  worth  half  as  much  at  such  a  time,  when 
we  have  just  got  out  of  our  winter  quarters,  and  when  we  want 
to  go  on  to  the  farm.     Another  one  will  say  it  is  a  good  idea 
that  you  have  advanced  ;  "  we  don't  want  long  sessions."   Any 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  89 

thing  we  want  to  do,  wc  want  to  do  well.  The  legislator  re- 
quires brains.  The  best  is  what  we  want.  The  people  in  May, 
as  I  have  said,  want  to  go  on  to  the  farms.  In  June  it  is  worse 
still.  I  believe  we  ought  to  have  the  session  in  January,  be- 
cause it  is  not  too  rold,  and  not  because  it  is  too  hot.  I  am  for 
the  January  session,  and  the  reason  I  stated  here  ;  and  it  is  be- 
cause I  want  the  meeting  to  be  pretty  near  the  election.  If 
that  is  to  be  in  November,  then  we  certainly  ought  to  meet 
in  January. 

Mr.  Cram  of  Hampton.  I  have  an  objection  to  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Dover,  because  in  May  I  want  to 
be  at  home  to  see  to  putting  in  my  seed  myself.  In  June  I  can 
trust  the  boys  to  do  the  hoeing. 

Mr.  Hastings  of  Monroe.  The  spring  is  the  season  of 
the  year  for  agriculture,  and  this  body  is  composed  chiefly 
of  members  of  the  agricultural  class.  "  Seed-time  and  har- 
vest" is  what  they  must  look  after.  May  is  the  time  that  they 
wish  to  put  their  seed  in,  and,  as  the  gentleman  just  said, 
most  farmers  wish  to  have  their  eye  upon  that  business  ;  and 
gathering  the  harvest  is  before  December  or  January.  To  have 
a  legislature  assemble  at  a  time  convenient  for  the  farmers, 
you  need  to  have  it  in  December  or  January  ;  it  is  immaterial 
which  month  :  I  prefer  January.  The  farmers  are  the  great 
mass  of  the  inhabitants — that  is,  territorially — of  the  state,  and 
the  house  would  be  chiefly  represented  by  the  farmers.  It 
would  be  much  better — more  convenient  and  satisfactory  in 
every  respect — to  assemble  in  winter. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  to  the  amend- 
ment was  rejected. 

The  question  upon  the  amendment  recurring  was  declared 
rejected. 

Whereupon  a  division  was  called  for. 

Mr.  Sawtell  of  Lyme.  I  have  a  word  to  say,  sir,  upon  this 
matter  ;  but  the  vote  has  been  taken. 

The  Chairman.  A  division  has  been  called  for;  the  remarks 
of  the  gentleman  are  in  order. 

Mr.  Sawtell.     I   have   only  to   say,  sir,  to   the  convention, 


90  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

that,  in  my  judgment,  we  had  best  let  it  remain  as  it  is.  I  am 
quite  of  the  opinion  that  inconveniences  do  occur  to  the  farm- 
ers ;  I  am  quite  of  the  opinion  that  other  inconveniences  might 
occur ; — but,  taking  everything  into  consideration,  I  am  of  the 
opinion  that  we  had  better  let  it  remain  as  it  is.  Some  objec- 
tion has  been  made  to  the  excessive  heat — that  it  can  hardly  be 
endured  during  the  month  of  June.  Why,  I  think,  sir,  that  is 
but  a  poor  argument.  I  saw  men  voluntarily  sit  here  last  June 
during  the  entire  night — the  hottest  night  of  the  season — and 
come  out  all  right  in  the  morning  ;  and  I  therefore  see  no  objec- 
tion to  the  time.  It  seems  to  be  thought  that  that  is  the  time  of 
putting  in  the  crop,  as  the  gentleman  has  suggested.  It  is  just 
the  hoeing  time,  and  not  the  seed  time,  as  has  been  suggested. 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  I  have  a  suggestion  or  two  to  make 
to  this  committee,  growing  out  of  my  own  experience,  which  are 
contrary  to  some  of  the  suggestions  made  here,  especially  those  of 
the  gentlemen  from  Concord  [Mr.  Gallinger]  and  Newport  [Mr. 
Barton].  The  people  of  New  Hampshire  are  economical :  they 
are  obliged  to  be  economical  by  their  circumstances — though  I 
am  rejoiced  to  say  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  are  advancing 
in  their  prosperity  nearly  as  much  as  any  other  section  of  the 
country,  unless  it  be  the  far  West.  Now,  I  have  no  doubt  that 
the  fact  that  the  legislature  meets  in  June  has  saved  us  thousands 
and  thousands  of  dollars  ;  and  now  shall  we  change  the  time 
and  fix  it  in  November — a  time  when  there  will  be  abundance 
of  leisure  for  people  to  stay  here  from  week  to  week  and  month 
to  month,  putting  the  people  to  great  expense?  In  regard  to  the 
statement  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr.  Gallin- 
ger], that  we  are  in  so  much  haste  in  June,  and  have  not  time 
to  make  such  good  legislation  as  is  demanded,  I  will  say  it 
here,  that  there  is  no  state  in  the  Union  that  has  a  legislature 
better  adapted  to  the  people  than  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 
I  have  one  other  remark,  suggested  by  what  fell  from  the  gen- 
tleman from  Newport  [Mr.  Barton],  in  regard  to  the  oppor- 
tunity for  corruption  if  we  make  the  election  in  November  and 
go  over  to  June  with  the  legislature  :  I  have  been  a  number  of 
times  a  member  of  the  legislature  of  this  state,  and  I  will  un- 
dertake to  say  I  never  saw  a  body  of  men  more  honest  than 
they,  and  one  in  which  I  was  more  fearless  of  corruption.    The 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  91 

corruption  is  not  here  ;  it  has  been  outside  ; — and  I  have  no  fear 
that,  if  we  have  the  election  in  November,  and  go  over  to  June 
for  the  session  of  the  legislature,  but  what  the  electors  will 
come  here  as  pure  as  they  would  come  the  next  day  after  elec- 
tion. 

Mr.  Hastings  of  Monroe.  I  agree  in  the  opinion  of  the  gen- 
tleman just  up.  He  says  that  the  legislation  of  this  state  has 
been  conducted  properly,  honorably,  by  honest,  upright,  intelli- 
gent men,  and  it  has  given  perfect  satisfaction.  Now  I  would 
ask  all  of  you,  if  you  change  the  time  from  the  second  Wednes- 
day in  June  to  the  second  Wednesday  in  January,  if  it  will  be 
more  convenient?  if  it  will  corrupt  these  men  and  make  them 
dishonest  by  changing  the  time?  Cannot  they  be  as  honest  in 
January  as  in  June?  I  think  they  can,  because,  in  one  respect, 
it  is  more  convenient  for  them,  and  if  they  still  have  any  induce- 
ment to  be  corrupt,  they  certainly  will.be  no  more  dishonest  in 
January  than  in  June.  I  have  no  doubt  that  they  will  be  just 
as  incorruptible  in  January  as  in  June  ;  but  if  you  meet  in  Janu- 
ary, won't  you  do  as  they  do  in  Massachusetts — sit  till  June? 
And  won't  you  be  obliged  to  do  as  they  do, — to  say  that  no 
member  shall  have  any  more  than  a  certain  sum,  and  if  they 
stay  here  afterward  they  should  bear  their  own  expenses?  I 
would  make  a  provision,  that  if  they  stayed  here  any  more  than 
a  certain  time,  they  should  pay  back  into  the  treasury  what  they 
have  already  drawn,  and  go  home.      [Laughter  and  applause.] 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport.  I  wish  to  make  one  remark  :  When, 
in  the  half-serious  and  half-not-serious  way,  I  spoke  about  the 
chances  of  corruption  between  the  election  and  the  session,  it 
was  more  in  sport  than  anything  else.  But  I  would  ask  the 
worthy  president,  when  he  speaks  of  the  wisdom  of  the  framers 
of  the  government  in  putting  it  in  June,  if  they  did  not  manifest 
their  wisdom  by  making  the  election  in  March  equally  as  well. 
Then  if  we  change  one  from  March  to  November,  we  assume 
to  know  something — that  our  brain  has  taught  us  something ; 
and  if  we  break  off  from  one  thing  our  wise  fathers  did,  why 
not  break  oft'  from  another?  Now  my  argument  is  based  upon 
the  fact  that  we  have  changed  our  election  to  November  ; — that 
being  done,  I  ask  the  committee  if  it  would  not  be  wise  to 


92  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

make  the  time  between  the  election  and  the  holding  of  the 
legislature  about  the  same  as  our  worthy  fathers  put  it.  Then, 
again,  I  think  that  the  worthy  president  undertakes  to  say  that 
we  should  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  our  neighboring  state  of 
Massachusetts,  and  sit  all  winter.  That  is  a  worse  corruption 
than  I  stated,  when  I  said  that  the  time  from  November  to  June 
was  so  long  it  would  leave  the  members  open  to  corruption. 
What  is  it  but  impugning  their  honesty,  to  say  that  they  would 
come  here  and  stay  all  winter,  simply  because  they  had  the 
right  to  stay?  Now,  from  what  I  know,  I  believe  that  if  the 
legislature  meet  here  in  January,  they  would  be  just  as  vigi- 
lant, active,  and  prompt,  and  stay  here  no  longer  during  the 
dreary  months  of  winter  than  was  actually  necessary  to  accom- 
plish the  work  they  had  to  do.  Now,  I  have  said  this  because 
I  thought  I  saw  a  loop-hole  in  the  gentleman's  argument,  and  I 
wished  to  present  it  to  the  house,  and  I  have  done  so. 

Mr.  Slayton  of  Manchester.  I  wish  to  say  a  word  upon  this 
question,  because  I  am  in  favor  of  changing  the  time  of  the 
meeting  of  the  legislature  to  January.  I  believe  that  the  people  of 
this  state  will  not  vote  to  substitute  November  for  March  unless 
the  convention  also  submit  the  proposition  of  substituting  the 
word  "January"  for  "June."  And  now,  gentlemen,  there  is  a 
very  grave  crisis  arising  in  this  country.  If  an  extra  session  of 
congress  is  called  this  winter,  our  state  will  be  unrepresented 
from  the  fourth  day  of  March  until  representatives  are  elected  ; 
and  this  is  likely  to  occur  biennially.  That  is  a  reason  why  I 
should  like  to  see  an  amendment  passed  substituting  January 
for  June,  so  this  state  may  be  represented  in  congress  when  a 
crisis  like  the  present  occurs. 

Mr.  Sinclair  of  Bethlehem.  If  there  is  anything  in  the  argu- 
ment that  has  been  advanced  for  changing  the  time,  it  would 
seem  to  be  this,  that  the  month  of  June  is  so  inconvenient  that 
members  of  the  legislature  cannot  well  come  here,  and  that 
when  they  once  come  here  they  cannot  stay  long  enough.  Now, 
sir,  the  answer,  it  seems  to  me,  to  the  first  proposition,  stands  in 
the  fact  that  the  committee  has  already  almost  unanimously 
voted  to  reduce  the  number  of  members.  I  understand,  in  refer- 
ence to  members  coming  here,  that  they  manage  to  get  here 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  93 

somehow.  There  are  a  great  many  members  of  this  convention 
who  have  managed  to  get  here  as  members  of  the  house.  In 
regard  to  the  legislature, — I  have  been  a  member  of  this  house 
for  a  great  many  sessions,  and  I  have  heard  a  great  deal  of  fault 
found,  in  one  way  or  another,  as  to  the  action  of  members  ;  but 
I  have  never  heard  any  complaint  made  by  the  people  that  the 
sessions  were  not  long  enough.  And  I  do  not  believe  there 
is  anything  in  that,  and  I  hope  there  will  be  no  change  as  to  the 
time  of  the  session,  unless  a  hotter  month  can  be  found  than  June. 

Mr.  Whipple  of  Laconia.  I  have  listened  with  a  great  deal 
of  attention  to  this  discussion,  and  I  have  come  to  one  conclusion, 
that  we  have  a  cause  of  gratitude  to  the  over-ruling  Providence 
for  broiling  the  preceding  legislatures  out  of  these  quarters.  It 
seems  to  me  that,  instead  of  our  legislature  ever  adjourning  be- 
cause their  business  is  done,  a  beneficent  Providence  sends  down 
burning  streams  of  broiling  caloric,  and  sends  them  home  on  the 
streams  of  their  own  perspiration.  If  it  turns  out  to  be  true 
that  this  legislature  ever  has  voluntarily  adjourned,  I  certainly 
shall  go  towards  trusting  them  with  the  question  of  their  ad- 
journment in  January. 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner.  I  am  aware  that  sarcasm  and  rid- 
icule are  oftentimes  more  powerful  than  argument ;  but  I  am 
opposed  to  the  month  of  June  for  the  very  reason  that  the  two 
last  gentlemen  have  given.  I  remember  that  last  June,  on  more 
than  one  and  perhaps  more  than  five  occasions,  it  was  impos- 
sible to  get  a  quorum.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  on  account 
of  the  heat,  or  what  it  was,  but  if  the  house  has  to  sit  without 
a  quorum  in  June,  I  apprehend  it  might  find  a  quorum  in  Jan- 
uary. The  question  comes  right  home  to  us,  Can  we,  by  bien- 
nial sessions,  and  cutting  down  the  house,  and  having  the  legis- 
lature meet  in  January,  and  following  the  example  of  Massa- 
chusetts as  the  gentleman  from  Manchester  has  suggested, — 
give  a  salary  to  the  members  of  the  house, — decrease  expenses? 
I  can  say  one  thing,  and  that  is,  if  we  do  that,  I  believe  the  peo- 
ple of  New  Hampshire  will  ratify  what  we  do.  If  they  can  let 
us  do  that — fix  a  salary  of  one  hundred  dollars  for  the  session — 
we  shall  secure  the  approval  of  the  people  ;  and  I  understand 
it  does  not  make  any  difference  in  Massachusetts  whether  the 


94  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

session  continues  ten  days  or  one  hundred  days, — they  get  the 
same  pay  in  that  legislature.  In  this  state  last  year  the  legisla- 
ture sat  longer  than  they  have  sat  for  years,  and  the  expense 
was  larger.  Now  if  that  practice  is  to  be  followed,  and  the 
people  are  willing  to  give  up  farming  and  business,  and  stay 
all  through  the  month  of  July,  I  do  not  believe  they  would  be 
more  willing  to  stay  through  the  months  of  January  and  Feb- 
ruary than  in  the  months  of  June  and  July,  because  in  February 
it  would  be  inconvenient.  It  is  a  question  of  right,  not  prec- 
edent ;  and  if  it  would  be  better,  and  this  convention  adopt 
it  after  due  deliberation,  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  people  would 
ratify  this  amendment. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  9S  gentlemen  voted  in  the 
affirmative  and  171  in  the  negative,  and  the  negative  prevailed 
and  the  amendment  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua  moved  to  amend  Article  60  by  strik- 
ing out  the  word  "  annually"  wherever  it  occurs,  and  inserting 
the  word  "  biennially." 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  At  the  request  of  a  gentleman  who 
is  absent  to-day,  and  not  of  my  own  motion  especially,  I  move 
in  amendment  of  the  gentleman's  motion  that  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  the  council,  including  Articles  60  to  66  inclusive,  be 
stricken  out, — that  is,  I  move  that  Articles  60,  61,  62,  63,  64, 
and  65  be  stricken  out.  The  committee  will  please  understand 
that  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  include  Article  66  ;  I  will  let  that 
— Article  66 — pass.  First,  strike  out  Articles  60,  61,  62,  63, 
64,  and  65,  and  then  amendments  can  be  made  if  found  neces- 
sary. 

Air.  Clark  of  Manchester.  Please  state  it  so  as  to  make  it  a 
distinct  motion.  The  motion  the  gentleman  makes  is  not  a 
proper  motion  to  make  as  an  amendment  to  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Nashua,  because  it  involves  the  striking  out  of 
a  very  much  larger  portion  of  the  Constitution.  He  should 
make  it  as  a  distinct  motion,  and  that  should  be  determined 
first. 

Mr.  Ramsdell.  For  the  purpose  of  having  this  matter  put 
squarely  before  the  committee,  so  that  the  committee  may  take 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  95 

action  and  express  the  opinion  of  the  convention,  I  will  with- 
draw my  motion  to  amend  Article  60. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  I  hope  this  motion  will  not  pre- 
vail. 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Dover  was  rejected. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Ramsdell  lenewed  his  motion  to  amend 
Article  60  by  striking  out  the  word  "annually"  wherever  it  oc- 
curs, and  inserting  the  word  "  biennially." 

And  the  same  was  adopted. 

The  following  amendment,  introduced  by  Mr.  Slayton  of 
Manchester,  was  adopted  : 

Amend  Article  60  by  striking  out  the  word  "  March  "  where- 
ever  it  occurs,  and  inserting  the  word  "  November." 

The  following  amendment,  introduced  by  Mr.  Smith  of 
Peterborough,  was  adopted  : 

Amend  Article  66  by  striking  out  "  annually,"  and  inserting 
"  biennially." 

Mr.  Perkins  of  Unity  introduced  the  following : 

That  Article  71  be  so  amended  that  the  office  of  register  of 
deeds  be  abolished,  and  the  duties  be  imposed  upon  the  town- 
clerks  of  the  several  towns. 

And  the  same  was  rejected. 

The  following  amendment,  introduced  by  Mr.  Page  of  Haver- 
hill, was  declared  adopted  : 

Amend  Article  71,  by  inserting  after  the  word  "treasurers"  in 
the  first  line,  the  words  "judges  and  registers  of  probate,  solic- 
itors, sheriffs." 

Whereupon  Mr.  Poor  of  Deny  called  for  a  division. 

Mr.  Page.  Before  a  division  vote  is  taken,  I  would  like  to  say 
that  this  question  ought  to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  because  a 
great  many  of  the  people  of  the  state  desire  an  opportunity  to  vote 
upon  it.    I  do  not  express  my  own  opinion,  merely.    If  there  is  a 


g6  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

respectable  number  of  people  of  the  state  who  desire  an  oppor- 
tunity to  vote  upon  it,  our  action  should  not  be  final.  I  think 
we  should  give  them  an  opportunity  to  say  whether  the  gov- 
ernor and  council  shall  elect  these  officers,  or  whether  they  shall 
be  elected  by  the  people  themselves. 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua.  These  questions  are  coming  upon 
us  so  fast,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  hardly  have  an  opportunity 
to  consider  them  carefully.  I  oftentimes  differ  with  my  friend 
from  Haverhill,  but  I  am  exceedingly  happy  that  he  has  made 
this  particular  motion.  If  there  is  anything  that  has  occur- 
red in  New  Hampshire  within  a  century  which  is  disgraceful 
to  all  political  parties,  it  is  this  wholesale  removing  from  office 
those  men  eminently  qualified  to  fill  official  positions.  Why, 
in  the  county  of  Hillsborough,  the  democratic  party  two  years 
ago  removed  a  man  from  the  office  of  judge  of  probate, — one 
who  was  thoroughly  qualified  for  the  position, — not  for  any 
other  reason  than  a  political  one — simply  on  political  grounds ; 
and  last  summer  the  republican  party  removed  a  man  from  the 
office  of  judge, — one  who  seemed  almost  to  be  created  for  the 
place,  filling  that  office  creditably  to  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire. Now  here  is  a  golden  opportunity  to  rid  ourselves 
of  the  apparent  necessity  occasionally  of  stultifying  ourselves 
as  men  and  citizens  if  we  happen  to  be  members  of  the  legis- 
lature, and  the  necessities  of  all  parties  seem  to  call  upon  us 
to  condemn  the  removal  of  good  men  from  office.  I  do  hope 
that  the  committee  will  consider  this  matter  carefully,  so  that 
we  will  leave  the  legislation  of  the  state  in  a  better  condition 
than  we  have  found  it.  I  hope  that  the  committee  will  either 
consider  the  motion  favorably,  or  put  it  over  so  that  we  may 
consider  it  hereafter. 

Mr.  Sawtell  of  Lyme.  This  seems  to  meet  my  purposes 
quite  as  well.  I  was  about  to  suggest  that  no  official  should 
be  removed  for  political  opinion.  I  fully  concur  with  the  gen- 
tleman who  has  just  spoken.  I  heartily  concur  in  all  his 
remarks,  and  should  be  happy  to  see  this  amendment  pass. 
Perhaps  it  would  be  better  than  the  one  I  have  already  pre- 
pared. 

Mr.  Putnam  of  Warren.     It  is  very  seldom  that  I  disagree 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  97 

with  my  friend  from  Nashua,  and  this  is  one  of  the  occasions 
when  I  take  pleasure  in  endorsing  every  word  he  has  uttered. 
I  agree  fully  with  his  remarks  and  with  the  gentleman  from 
Lyme,  and  I  believe  the  amendment  ought  to  be  adopted,  and, 
if  adopted,  I  have  no  doubt  it  will  be  thoroughly  ratified  by  the 
people. 

Mr.McDufly  of  Rochester.  It  seems  to  me  that  some  changes 
for  the  better  ought  to  be  gained  by  this  amendment.  I  do  not 
believe  that  the  framers  of  our  Constitution  ever  contemplated 
the  wholesale  removal  of  officials  by  the  legislature,  which  we 
have  witnessed  on  the  part  of  both  political  parties.  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  fair-minded  and  impartial  men  of  the  different 
political  parties  must  have  felt  grieved  to  see  to  what  an  extent 
it  has  been  carried.  I  believe  that  this  is  one  of  the  dangers 
that  threaten  our  government, — not  only  our  national  govern- 
ment, but  our  state  government.  There  is  a  loud  call  by  the 
people  for  civil  service  reform,  and  I  believe  we  need  it  in  this 
state  as  well  as  in  the  national  government.  There  is  no  bet- 
ter time  or  place  to  secure  it  than  the  present  time  and  place, 
but  I  hardly  dare  to  expect  that  any  such  thing  as  this  will  be 
done.  It  seems  to  me  a  good  deal  like  pulling  down  a  house 
to  kill  the  rats.  I  would  suggest  that,  if  this  is  to  pass,  that 
there  should  be  an  amendment  at  the  end  of  the  article  to  this 
effect :  "  That  no  person  shall  be  removed  from  office  for  par- 
tisan reasons." 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated,  212  gentlemen  voted 
in  the  affirmative  and  24  in  the  negative,  and  the  affirmative 
prevailed  and  the  amendment  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Ordvvay  of  Warner  introduced  the  following  amendment : 

Amend  Article  67  by  inserting  after  the  word  "treasurer" 
the  words  "  shall  be  elected  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  several 
towns  in  this  state."  Also,  insert  the  word  "  the  "  after  "  and  " 
and  before  the  words  "  commissary-general." 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster.  It  seems  to  me  that  by  this  prop- 
osition you  allow  everybody  to  vote — men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren. If  we  are  going  to  that  extreme,  I  think  we  had  better 
legislate  on  suffrage  to  everybody. 

7 


98  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

Mr.  Ordway.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me,  I  will  state 
that  I  use  the  same  phraseology,  or  rather  language,  that  has 
been  used  here  in  the  article. 

A  Delegate.  I  should  like  the  gentleman's  reasons  for  press- 
ing the  amendment. 

Mr.  Ordway.  I  simply  made  the  motion  to  strike  out  this 
clause,  because  it  has  become  the  practice  among  most  of  the 
states  to  elect  those  officials  by  the  people.  I  do  not  know  why 
the  people  of  this  state  are  not  as  competent  to  elect,  upon  the 
general  ticket,  those  officers  as  they  are  in  any  other  states.  I 
suppose  the  practice  has  become  pretty  general,  perhaps  almost 
universal,  to  elect  those  officers  by  the  people  ;  and,  as  the  com- 
mittee seemed  to  be  in  a  mood  to  elect  the  officers  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  people,  it  struck  me  that  we  might  act  upon  it.  I  am 
not  tenacious  about  it,  one  way  or  the  other.  In  answer  to  the 
gentleman's  question,  I  may  say  that  I  used  the  same  language 
that  has  been  used  in  regard  to  the  county  officers,  though  it 
may  not  have  been  correct. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was  rejected. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester, 

Ordered,  That  the  committee  rise  and  report  progress. 

IN   CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Burns,  chairman,  reported  that  the  committee  of  the 
whole  had  had  under  consideration  so  much  of  Part  Second  of 
the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  executive  department,  and  had 
adopted  the  following  amendments  : 

1.  That  the  last  nine  words  of  Article  42  be  stricken  out,  to 
wit,  "  and  unless  he  shall  be  of  the  Protestant  religion." 

2.  To  Article  42 — Strike  out  the  word  "  annually"  wherever 
it  occurs,  and  insert  the  word  "  biennially." 

3.  To  Article  42 — Strike  out  the  word  "  March"  wherever  it 
occurs,  and  insert  the  word  "  November." 

4.  To  Article  60 — By  striking  out  the  word  "annually" 
wherever  it  occurs,  and  inserting  the  word  "  biennially." 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  99 

5.  To  Article  60 — By  striking  out  the  word  "March"  wherc- 
ever  it  occurs,  and  inserting  the  word  "  Novemher." 

6.  To  Article  66 — By  striking  out  the  word  "annually" 
wherever  it  occurs,  and  inserting  the  word  "  biennially." 

7.  To  Article  71 — By  inserting  after  the  word  "treasurer" 
in  the  first  line,  the  words  "judges  and  registers  of  probate, 
solicitors,  sheriffs." 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill, 

Ordered,  That  the  secretary  of  the  convention  request  the 
state  librarian  to  keep  the  state  khiarvoopen  bejivcen  the  hours 
of  8  A.  m.  and  6  P.  M.,  during  t'io,j:;o.ss!ons  of  this  convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Thompson  of  Concord,  the  convention,- ad~, 
journcd. 

after  :>0on.'       '      .  , 

The  convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord,  the  several  amend- 
ments adopted  this  forenoon  in  committee  of  the  whole  were 
considered,  and  were  severally  adopted  by  the  convention. 

Ordered,  That  these  several  amendments,  with  that  part  of 
the  Constitution,  relating  to  the  executive  department,  be  refer- 
red to  the  committee  on  Bill  of  Rights,  executive  department, 
and  religious  test. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord,  the  convention  re- 
solved itself  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  so  much  of  the 
Constitution  as  relates  to  the  judicial  department,  and  also  the 
remaining  portion  of  the  Constitution  to  the  end  thereof. 

IN    COMMITTEE    OF    THE    WHOLE. 

(Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord  in  the  chair.) 

The  clerk  having  read  at  length  so  much  of  the  Constitution 
as  relates  to  the  judicial  department,  and  also  the  remaining 
portion  of  the  Constitution  to  the  end  thereof, 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sawtell  of  Lyme,  the  following  amend- 
ment was  adopted  : 

To  Article  73 — At  the  end  of  the  article  add  the  following 


IOO  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

words,  viz.,  "but  in  no  case  shall  such  removal  be  for  politi- 
cal opinions." 

Mr.  Burns  of  Lancaster  moved  to  strike  out  the  whole  of 
Article  77. 

Mr.  Burns.  We  have  already  adopted  the  amendment  estab- 
lishing tribunals  for  causes  where  the  sum  in  dispute  is  not  over 
$100,  and  where  the  title  to  real  estate  is  not  in  dispute.  Here 
the  justices  have  jurisdiction  for  £4,  or  $13.33,  an<^  unless  we 
strike  this  out,. parties  will  still  have  the  right  of  trial  by  jury 
by  appeal."  I'y.  isi>  tlris  stviciiep-out,  to  make  it  conform  to  the 
other'-amendment  adopted  by 'the'  convention. 

;  \Mr.'  Clark  of  Manchester.  It  is  fii?t  in  order  to  amend  the 
article,  and  make  it  as  good  as  you  can,  and  then  if  you  cannot 
make  it  goo  1  eneug'i  to  satisfy  *he  body,  strike  it  out.  A  mo- 
tion to  amend  'being  first  in*  order,  I  move  to  amend  Article  77, 
by  striking  out  the  following  words :  "  so  that  a  trial  by  jury 
in  the  last  resort  may  be  had." 

Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter.  Is  there  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  right 
of  appeal  ? 

The  Chairman.  No,  only  the  words  after  "  court,"  in  the 
last  line,  "so  that  a  trial  by  jury  in  the  last  resort  may  be  had." 

Mr.  Walker  of  Claremont.  My  impression  is,  that  the  peo- 
ple of  this  state  will  not  give  up  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  no 
matter  how  small  the  affair  may  be  in  dispute.  If  members 
take  the  same  view  as  I  do,  they  will  not  vote  to  strike  out  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury — a  right  engrafted  in  our  history  and  in 
all  our  judicial  proceedings  from  the  earliest  period  of  our  gov- 
ernment down  to  the  present  time. 

Mr.  Clark.  We  have  already  voted  in  another  part  of  the 
Constitution  that  tribunals  shall  be  established,  without  a  jury, 
to  try  causes  where  the  amount  does  not  exceed  $100.  Now, 
we  should  either  take  one  course  or  the  other :  either  have 
tribunals  without  a  jury  up  to  the  amount  of  $100,  or  have 
them  in  all  cases. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter.  I  am  requested  by  some  of  the 
members  of  the  committee  here  to  say  a  word  in  explanation 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  IOI 

of  the   amendment  that  has   heen   made,  that  it  may  appear 

plainly  what  will  he  the  effect  of  the  amendment  of  die  gentle- 
man from  .Manchester.  The  constitutional  convention  is  not  a 
legislative  body.  In  the  first  place,  it  does  not  establish  judica- 
tories or  courts  of  any  sort.  The  business  of  the  constitu- 
tional convention  is,  first,  as  I  understand  it,  to  establish  a  form 
of  government ;  and  it  can  do  two  things  more, — one  is,  to  grant 
to  that  government  that  it  has  established  certain  powers,  and 
another  is,  to  restrain  it  by  other  articles  in  the  Constitution 
from  exercising  other  powers.  That  is  all  there  is  to  a  consti- 
tutional convention  :  it  is  to  grant  powers  to,  and  to  restrict  the 
exercise  of  powers  by,  the  legislative  bodies.  Now,  what  is 
attempted  to  be  done  here?  and  what  has  already  been  done 
by  the  convention  in  the  Bill  of  Rights?  I  will  refer  to  it.  In 
the  20th  Article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  as  it  stands  now  in 
the  Constitution,  are  words  as  follows  :  "  in  all  controversies 
concerning  property,  and  in  all  suits  between  two  or  more  per- 
sons, except  in  cases  otherwise  provided  for  in  the  Constitution, 
or  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof  by  the  legislature,  the  par- 
ties shall  have  the  right  to  trial  by  jury  ;  but  the  court  shall  try 
the  facts  as  well  as  the  law  in  cases  where  the  parties  agree." 
Bv  this  clause  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  in  all  cases  in  which  it  has 
not  otherwise  been  used  and  practised,  parties  have  a  right  to  a 
trial  by  jury.  But  there  are  cases  in  which  it  has  otherwise 
been  used  and  practised,  and  in  which  it  has  never  been  in  this 
state  held  that  the  party  had,  as  a  matter  of  right,  the  right  to  a 
trial  by  jury. 

In  all  admiralty  causes,  in  relation  to  seamen's  wages  and 
other  cases,  parties  would  not  have  a  right  of  trial  by  jury, — and 
so  in  equity  causes  ;  and  this  is  the  opinion,  although  the  di- 
vided opinion,  of  the  judges — they  have  not  been  always  unani- 
mous on  the  subject ;  but  the  general  opinion  has  been  that  in 
equity  causes  there  was  no  right,  under  the  Constitution,  to  a 
trial  by  jury,  of  questions  of  fact  that  arose  in  those  causes.  It 
is  the  common  practice,  as  everybody  knows,  for  the  court  to 
make  up  issues  out  of  the  facts,  where  they  think  it  is  a  proper 
case  for  trial  by  jury,  and  to  send  those  issues  to  the  jury  to 
determine  the  facts, — although  the  court  have  the  power,  and  in 
a  great  many  instances  they  exercise  the  power,  of  determining 


102  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

facts  themselves  without  the  intervention  of  a  jury.  Now,  this 
article — the  77th  Article — that  is  now  under  consideration,  is  in 
these  words  :  "  The  general  court  are  empowered  to  give  to 
justices  of  the  peace  jurisdiction  in  civil  causes,  when  the  dam- 
ages demanded  shall  not  exceed  four  pounds,  and  title  of  real 
estate  is  not  concerned  :  but  with  right  of  appeal  to  either  par- 
ty to  some  other  court,  so  that  a  trial  by  jury,  in  the  last  resort, 
may  be  had." 

That  is  in  conformity  with  the  20th  Article  of  the  Bill  of 
Rights  ;  so  that,  however  small  the  cause  that  is  tried  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  the  party  that  gets  beaten  may  appeal  and 
go  to  some  other  court,  and  have  the  right  of  trial  by  jury.  Now, 
to  make  the  article  conform  to  what  has  already  been  done  by 
the  convention  in  respect  to  Article  20,  it  is  proposed  to  strike 
out  these  words,  "  so  that  a  trial  by  jury,  in  the  last  resort,  may 
be  had  ;"  and  then  the  article  will  read  thus :  "  The  general 
court  are  empowered  to  give  to  justices  of  the  peace  jurisdic- 
tion in  civil  causes,  when  the  damages  demanded  shall  not 
exceed  four  pounds,  and  title  of  real  estate  is  not  concerned, 
but  with  right  of  appeal  to  either  party  to  some  other  court;" 
because  I  suppose  nobody  would  want  to  have  his  rights  left 
conclusively  in  the  hands  of  a  justice  of  the  peace  in  New 
Hampshire,  for  anybody  and  everybody  can  be  a  justice  of  the 
peace  by  sending  his  application  to  the  governor,  enclosing  a 
dollar  to  pay  for  his  commission.  Now,  when  this  Article  20 
was  under  consideration,  I  explained  to  the  committee,  as  well 
as  I  could,  what  I  thought  was  a  great  grievance  in  the  practice 
of  law  and  the  trial  of  small  causes  in  this  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire ;  for  there  are  some  rights — and  gentlemen  say  that  this 
right  of  trial  by  jury  is  a  great  and  sacred  right— and  I  agree 
with  them  in  that  there  are  some  rights  that  it  costs  so  much 
to  enforce  that  they  become  great  wrongs,  and  are  ruinous 
when  the  attempt  is  made  to  enforce  them  in  this  way. 

Now,  what  would  be  the  effect  of  adopting  the  amendment 
now  proposed,  together  with  the  amendment  that  has  already 
been  adopted  ?  This  convention  does  not  say  that  the  parties 
shall  not  have  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  in  every  case.  They  do 
not  say  any  such  thing ;  all  they  do  is  to  leave  it  to  the  legisla- 
ture to  erect  such  tribunals  as  the  wisdom  of  the  legislature — 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  103 

the  members  coming  from  the  people  every  year — may  devise 
for  the  trial  of  small  causes. 

A  Member.     Every  two  years. 

Mr.  Marston.  Yes,  every  two  years,  if  we  adopt  that.  It  may 
be  that  the  legislature  will  not  think  it  wise  to  erect  any  tribunals 
without  a  jury,  or  to  try  anything ;  or,  if  they  do  so,  it  may  be 
found  in  practice  not  to  work  so  well  as  supposed,  and  then  in 
another  year  be  abolished.  It  is  all  in  the  hands  of  the  legis- 
lature, and  they  can  do  what  the  people  want  them  to  do  about 
it;  and  if  they  want  to  establish  tribunals  to  try  these  little 
causes  at  little  expense,  or  hardly  any  expense,  they  can  have 
them  ;  if  they  do  not  want  them,  they  need  not  provide  for 
them  ;  and  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  danger  to  anybody's 
rights  at  all.  Now,  suppose  the  legislature  should  not  do  any- 
thing;  suppose  we  adopt  these  amendments,  and  there  is  no 
legislation  about  it :  what  would  be  the  effect  as  the  law  stands 
now  on  our  statute-book?  Why,  last  June  we  passed  what  is 
called  a  referee  law,  which  I  think  is  a  pretty  good  one.  It  au- 
thorized the  court  to  refer  any  cause  pending  in  court,  where  a 
party  has  not,  as  a  matter  of  right,  a  right  to  trial  by  jury,  to 
one  or  more  referees.  Now,  what  referees  would  the  court  ap- 
point? whom  do  they  appoint?  We  have  had  a  referee  law  for 
three  or  four  years,  and  there  has  been  a  good  deal  of  practice 
under  it.  The  supreme  court  held  that  it  did  not  amount  to 
much  because  the  party  had  the  right  to  go  to  a  jury,  and  they 
held,  also,  that  the  report  could  not  go  as  evidence  ;  so  it  was 
of  no  use  to  try  causes  before  that  board  of  referees.  But  what 
was  the  practice  of  the  court?  Why,  it  was  this,  uniformly,  so 
far  as  I  know  :  The  court  would  say,  "  Gentlemen,  can  you 
agree  upon  a  referee?"  The  parties  consulted,  and  in  nine 
cases  out  of  ten  agreed  upon  some  gentleman  that  was  satisfac- 
tory to  both  :  then  the  party  had  a  tribunal  of  his  own  selec- 
tion— a  man  in  whom  he  had  the  utmost  confidence — and  the 
court  never,  in  any  instance,  would  appoint  a  referee  if  either 
party  seriously  objected  to  it; — the  instance  has  never  been 
known. 

Now,  then,  what  next?  Why,  the  referee  gives  notice 
that   he   will    hear   the   cause  at   such  a    time.     The    parties 


104  JOURNAL   OF  THE 

appear  before  him  with  their  witnesses.  Now,  if  anything 
happens, — if  there  happens  to  be  some  witness  sick,  or  some 
party  sick,  after  the  trial  begins, — what  has  been  done  is  not 
lost ;  but  if  that  happens  where  you  go  to  a  jury, — you  get  up 
there  with  your  cause  with  the  jury,  and  a  witness  is  taken 
sick,  or  a  juryman  is  taken  sick,  or  a  party  is  taken  sick,  or 
some  misfortune  happens  so  that  the  trial  has  to  stop, — what 
has  been  done  is  all  lost.  There  is  enormous  expense  to  the 
parties,  nothing  gained,  and  all  has  to  be  gone  over  with  at 
another  term.  But,  in  case  of  a  referee,  there  is  nothing  lost. 
He  adjourns  his  court  until  a  witness  gets  well,  and  then  goes 
on,  taking  up  the  case  where  he  left  it,  and  the  cause  is  decided  ; 
and  the  court  look  it  over  and  see  that  the  record  has  been 
right,  because  he  is  obliged  to  report  all  his  rulings  on  ques- 
tions of  law.  He  is  obliged  to  report  to  the  court  all  the  facts 
that  he  has  found  ;  and  if  the  court  say  that  he  is  right — that  his 
rulings  on  questions  of  law  have  all  been  right — and  there  is  no 
occasion  to  recommit  it,  no  new  evidence  suggested,  or  that 
has  been  done  or  can  be  done,  the  trial  has  been  fair, — then 
judgment  is  rendered,  and  that  is  the  end.  And  why  should  it 
not  be  so  in  these  little  causes  which  lumber  up  our  dockets  and 
make  the  county  taxes  so  enormous  that  everybody  is  complain- 
ing about  it? 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Farmington.  I  own  I  am  very  fond  of  ref- 
eree courts.  I  believe  they  are  a  source  of  greatly  facilitating 
the  jurisprudence  of  the  state  ;  but  I  wish  to  have  it  recognized 
in  the  Constitution  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  the  right  of 
appeal  in  small  causes.  I  believe  in  the  right  of  jury  trials  ;  I 
believe,  as  a  measure  of  safety  to  this  government — not  only  to 
the  United  States  government,  but  to  the  government  of  each 
state — the  right  of  trial  by  jury  should  be  recognized.  At  all 
times  the  English-speaking  people,  from  the  days  of  Adam 
down  to  the  present  time,  have  believed  in  the  right  of  trial  by 
jury  ;  and  I  must  say  I  do  not  believe  the  people  of  New  Hamp- 
shire are  willing  now  to  suspend  that  right,  even  in  small 
causes.  Why,  sir,  these  small  causes  form  a  large  portion  of 
the  litigation  in  this  state,  and  I  do  not  wish  to  shut  out  from 
the  poor  man  the  right  of  trial  by  jury.    I  think  the  poor  man's 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  IO$ 

court  should  be  respected.  I  think  the  justices  of  the  peace 
should  not  have  a  final  jurisdiction  in  any  case,  and  that  we 
should  recognize  in  the  Constitution  the  right  of  appeal  in 
small  cases  as  well  as  large  cases.  Are  we  going  to  draw  a 
line  here  between  the  rich  and  poor? 

The  Chairman.  The  amendment  is  not  in  regard  to  the  right 
of  appeal. 

Mr.  Eastman.  I  understood  it  to  be  so.  At  any  rate,  I  hope 
that  right  will  be  preserved. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter.  The  amendment  does  not  prevent 
trial  by  jury  of  these  causes.  There  are  a  great  many  causes, 
small  in  amount,  which  no  court,  little  as  they  are,  would  ever 
think  of  sending  to  a  referee.  If  it  is  a  proper  case,  why,  send  it 
to  a  referee,  just  as  they  often  do  ;  it  is  always  in  the  discretion 
of  the  court,  as  they  often  send  equity  cases. 

Mr.  Sawtell  of  Lyme.  I  believe  that  the  legislature  has 
never  seen  fit  to  change  the  law,  but  that  it  has  been  the  uni- 
form custom  of  the  courts  to  try  all  cases  on  their  merits  before 
a  jury. 

Mr.  Quarles  of  Ossipee.  If  you  pass  that  amendment,  the 
legislature  has  a  right  to  erect  a  tribunal ;  it  may  establish  a 
court  where  there  is  no  appeal  under  this  Constitution.  As  it 
now  stands,  the  legislature  may  erect  as  many  tribunals  as  they 
please  ;  but  as  the  Constitution  now  stands,  it  gives  the  right  of 
trial  by  jury  in  all  cases.  I  do  not  want  to  see  a  single  article 
of  the  Bill  of  Rights  invaded.  I  do  not  want  to  see  any  rights 
of  the  citizens  cut  off; — I  had  rather  enlarge  than  lessen  their 
rights.  I  have  talked  with  a  large  number  of  citizens  about 
this  amendment  to  the  20th  Article,  and  they  did  not  understand 
it  fully,  but  they  understand  that  this  did  not  cut  off  the  right  of 
trial  by  jury.  If  you  are  satisfied  that  you  have  had  a  fair  trial  by 
referee,  then  you  may  stop  there — that  is  all  well  ;  but  if  you  are 
not  satisfied  that  you  have  had  a  fair  trial  by  a  referee,  you  want 
to  appeal  to  the  jury  of  your  county,  that  you  may  have  the  case 
decided  to  your  satisfaction.  Gentlemen,  it  is  not  only  impor- 
tant that  the  case  should  be  decided  right,  but  for  the  peace, 
security,    contentment,    and    satisfaction   of  the    people,    it   is 


106  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

necessary  that  every  man  should  believe  that  he  has  had  a  fair 
trial.  They  talk  about  the  cost  and  expense.  Don't  it  cost  a 
good  deal  to  punish  the  criminals  in  this  state?  If  a  murder 
trial  costs  three  or  four  thousand  dollars,  shall  we  abolish  the 
trial  by  jury  because  it  costs  so  much?  You  might  as  well  abol- 
ish the  criminal  code,  and  have  a  single  justice  of  the  peace 
appointed  to  decide  all  the  cases  in  the  county  ?  I  have  said 
quite  enough,  perhaps  more  than  enough,  but  I  want  to  say  one 
word  more.  Let  us  look  at  it:  In  1S50  the  people  had  not 
found  out  that  they  wanted  any  but  a  trial  by  jury.  That  right 
has  existed  for  more  than  six  hundred  and  fifty  years  ;  it  was 
part  of  our  history  six  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago.  The  people 
of  England  demanded  of  King  John  this  right ;  and  from  that 
time  down  it  has  never  been  denied  this  people,  and  I  do  not 
think  it  ever  will  be. 

Mr.  Wallace  of  Rochester.  I  think  it  is  wise  to  do  away 
with  this  jury  matter.  I  could  recite  to  you  a  little  case  in 
illustration  of  this  matter,  and  I  won't  be  but  a  minute.  Two 
men  had  been  in  business  in  our  town  together,  and  they  sepa- 
rated, and  each  sued  the  other.  They  were  determined  to  have 
a  trial  by  jury  about  it.  I  tried  to  settle  it  between  them,  as  I 
always  try  to  settle  such  matters.  One  said  that  he  would  not 
have  it  go  to  a  referee  ;  and  the  other  said  he  should  go  to  a 
jury  by  all  means.  After  a  while,  they  finally  said  that  I  might 
select  a  referee.  Two  men  took  the  case  in  one  day,  and  charged 
three  dollars  apiece  ;  and  both  are  grateful  to-day  that  that  was 
done.  It  was  a  case  involving  only  about  twenty-five  dollars. 
Now  I  hope  that  this  committee  will  not  back  down  from  the 
position  that  they  took  the  other  day. 

Mr.  Mann  of  Benton.  I  have  never  had  the  great  benefit  of 
this  trial  by  jury,  and  I  therefore  ask  your  indulgence  of  my 
views.  As  long  as  I  have  lived,  I  have  never  had  a  trial  by 
jury — during  fifty-two  years — and  I  hope  I  never  shall  have  that 
pleasure.  But  I  know  a  great  number  of  my  neighbors  who 
have  had  a  trial  by  jury, — and  they  don't  want  any  more  of 
it ;  I  know  of  people  in  the  poor-house  who  have  had  trial  by 
jury, — and  they  don't  want  any  more  of  it ;  and  I  also  know  of 
people  in  the  asylum,  and  some  in  the  work-house, — and  they 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  107 

don't  want  any  more  of  it.  But  I  see  one  class  of  people  on  the 
floor  of  this  house  who  desire  trial  by  jury.  In  certain  emer- 
gencies, I  know  that  it  is  desirable  to  have  such  a  trial,  and'  I 
thing  it  is  right  in  some  cases.  I  believe  that  this  committee  is 
favorable  to  trial  by  jury  in  certain  cases  ;  and  I  believe  the  cit- 
izens of  New  Hampshire  are  prepared  to  give  a  verdict  upon 
this  question  when  it  is  put  squarely  before  them.  Therefore, 
I  propose  to  trouble  you  no  longer. 

Mr.  Ramsdcll  of  Nashua.  I  only  wish  to  say  one  word  in 
addition  to  the  very  exhaustive  argument  in  favor  of  this 
amendment  by  the  gentleman  from  Exeter.  You  understand 
from  the  drift  of  his  talk  that  this  committee  need  not  estab- 
lish the  question  of  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  but  that  the  legis- 
lature under  it  would  have  the  right  to  erect  such  tribunals,  or 
not,  for  the  trial  of  these  causes.  If  the  people  of  New  Hamp- 
shire desire  a  jury  of  six  men,  or  three,  or  nine,  before  a  justice 
of  the  peace,  under  the  amendment  which  is  now  before  the 
committee,  they  can  have  it.  It  would  turn  out  to  be  one  of 
the  most  beneficent  things  for  us.  The  courts  have  held  that 
at  the  time  the  Constitution  was  adopted  the  term  "jury" 
meant  twelve  men  :  that  is,  we  cannot  establish  a  jury  of  less 
than  twelve.  I  hope  that  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentlemen  from  Exeter  will  prevail. 

Mr.  Sawyer  of  Weare.  There  is  a  matter  about  this  debate 
that  has  not  been  touched  on  at  all.  For  instance,  a  man  of 
small  means  does  not  dare  to  go  into  court,  knowing  that  the 
person  who  is  opposing  him  can  carry  the  case  on,  having  the 
means,  and  worry  him  out.  I  say,  representing  the  poorer 
class  of  men,  that  we  have  a  right  to  get  out  of  a  case  accord- 
ing to  our  means,  and  not  have  it  prolonged  by  the  richer 
party.  I  sav  that  the  man  who  has  money  shall  not  have  the 
power  to  keep  a  case  along  in  court,  and  make  his  opponent 
spend  more  than  he  wants  to. 

Mr.  Qiiarles  of  Ossipee.  This  is  a  question  of  right.  Now, 
you  talk  of  lessening  the  expense.  You  lessen  the  expense  of 
your  county  courts,  and  you  will  build  up  a  lot  of  petty  tribunals 
that  the  people  will  learn  to  despise  and  condemn  ;  and  you 
will  build  up  a  set  of  old  pettifoggers,  digging  up  nasty  little 


108  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

cases,  and  driving  the  patience  out  of  your  court.  That  has 
been  recently  tried  in  Vermont ;  and  I  am  sorry  to  see  the  empty 
chair  of  my  friend  who  could  explain  that  to  you — that  is,  the 
gentleman  from  Haverhill :  he  understands  the  workings  of  that 
system  in  Vermont.  As  I  understand  him,  it  has  built  up  a  set  of 
pettifoggers  around  there  who  have  plenty  of  petty  trials,  and ' 
small  courts  are  kept  in  constant  operation,  and  the  people  of  the 
community  are  kept  in  a  state  of  irritation  ;  and  that  will  be  the 
result  in  this  state.  I  wish  the  gentleman  from  Haverhill  were 
here  to  explain  it.  You  will  find  that  the  cost  to  the  people 
will  be  very  great.  It  has  been  suggested  here  that  the  cause 
should  be  tried  by  neighbors.  No  such  thing.  You  want  some 
man  from  another  part  of  the  county — one  who  knows  nothing 
about  it,  who  has  heard  nothing  about  it — one  who  can  sit  and 
try  it  impartially.  You  do  not  want  your  neighbors,  who  know 
all  about  the  cases  and  have  heard  them  talked  about,  to  sit 
upon  them.  Such  men  cannot  give  an  impartial  judgment;  for 
we  know  that  we  are  all  so  constituted  that  where  there  is  a  story 
told  against  a  man's  character,  in  spite  of  ourselves  we  will  be 
warped  and  credulous,  more  or  less,  in  our  minds.  So  much 
is  that  the  fact,  that  the  legislature  of  this  state  has  enacted  that 
where  there  is  a  case  pending,  no  party,  except  in  open  court  or 
in  the  presence  of  the  other  party,  shall  speak  to  any  judge 
about  any  case  pending  before  him — not  even  to  speak  of  its 
merits.  Then  you  say  the  neighbors  shall  try  the  causes.  They 
would  then  have  no  appeal,  no  right  to  go  to  a  jury.  I  think 
that  we  should  consider  this  matter  carefully,  and  if  a  man  de- 
sires to  have  this  right,  I  say  that  he  ought  to  have  it. 

Mr.  Putnam  of  Warren.  I  do  not  propose,  at  this  stage  of 
the  discussion,  to  engage  in  it.  I  rise  simply  to  correct  the 
gentleman  who  undertakes  to  say  that  the  change  in  Vermont, 
as  I  understand  him,  has  operated  unfavorably  by  creating  a 
great  number  of  small  courts,  and  set  upon  the  people  of  the 
state  a  great  number  of  pettifoggers.  As  I  understand  it,  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury  is  secured,  and  any  individual  can  bring  a 
suit  before  a  jury.  He  is  entitled  to  have  a  trial  by  a  jury  of  six 
men,  and  after  that  trial  he  can  take  an  appeal,  and  have 
another  trial  in  the  county  court,  and  there  is  no  limitation.     It 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  IOQ 

has  been  said  here  that  we  ought  not  to  make  this  change,  and 
create  a  great  number  of  petty  tribunals.  I  would  like  to  know 
where  the  gentleman  learned  about  these  pettifoggers.  When 
men  of  high  integrity,  and  of  good  standing,  and  learned  in  the 
law,  and  entirely  disinterested,  are  authorized  to  sit  on  the 
cases,  are  they  to  be  characterized  as  pettifoggers?  The 
jurymen  try  the  cases  as  well  as  they  can,  but  do  not  pretend 
to  be  as  competent  as  those  men  who  make  the  law  the  busi- 
ness of  their  lives.  I  think  that  the  people  of  this  state  have 
a  right  to  throw  off  the  burden  that  has  been  imposed  upon 
them  by  excessive  litigation. 

Mr.  George  of  Barnstead.  Until  the  selectmen  of  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire  can  better  regulate  the  jury  box,  I  shall  go 
for  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill.  It  seems  that  in  my  absence  my 
name  has  been  called,  it  being  suggested  that  I  might  say  some- 
thing about  Vermont  practice.  I  live  near  the  state  of  Ver- 
mont. If  the  people  of  this  state  desire  protection  against 
unnecessary  litigation,  they  should  seek  it  in  different  channels, 
in  my  humble  judgment,  from  this.  This  is  an  unsafe  method. 
It  is  not  lessening  but  increasing  expenses,  because  the  weaker 
party  has  to  give  up  to  the  party  who  has  got  more  money,  and 
to  men  who  are  not  qualified  oftentimes,  to  exercise  and  prac- 
tise law.  That  is  my  notion.  I  may  be  entirely  mistaken, 
but  my  observation  is  that  way.  The  men  who  know  the  most 
about  the  case  should  not  try  it ;  if  so,  we  would  then  be  going 
back  to  the  time  of  trying  by  witnesses.  Will  anybody  be  dis- 
satisfied with  a  trial  by  jury?  I  say  that  the  course  that  is  pro- 
posed here  is  suicidal. 

Mr.  Cole  of  Gilford.  We  are  not  going  to  establish  a  court 
in  Vermont.  The  question  has  been  asked  almost  for  ten  years 
past  why  the  general  court  has  not  made  a  law  whereby  these 
small  cases  could  be  tried  in  a  cheaper  manner.  I  have  never, 
in  all  my  business  life  of  forty  years,  tried  to  collect  small  bills 
by  recourse  to  law,  because  if  you  sued  a  corporation,  or  some 
men  who  have  more  money  than  you,  they  would  carry  it  up 
and  along,  and  you  would  not  be  able  to  stand  it,  or  get  justice 
done.     As  was  said,  the  poor  man  is  to  be  benefited  by  this 


110  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

law  whereby  these  cases  can  be  settled  by  all  parties  concerned. 
I  think  pretty  soon  we  shall  understand  it.  And  about  this 
honorable  profession, — I  don't  know  that  it  is  any  more  hon- 
orable than  that  of  a  mechanic  or  farmer,  if  he  wants  justice  done. 
We  all  have  the  privilege  of  having  justice  done,  and  we  should 
not  be  compelled  to  go  to  any  court  week  after  week,  and  then 
not  get  justice  done.  I  know  of  many  cases  :  of  one,  involving 
only  $100,  that  occupied  a  session  of  the  court  for  eight  days — 
a  trial  that  would  impose  upon  our  county  perhaps  a  thousand 
dollars  of  expense.  Let  the  legislature  have  the  privilege  of 
fixing  this  equitably,  and  if  men  can  get  a  better  trial  as  pro- 
posed, why,  let  them  have  it.  Then  the  "honorable  profes- 
sion" can  come  up  the  next  year  and  repeal  it. 

Mr.  Frink  of  Greenland.  It  seems  to  me  that  my  friend  from 
Haverhill,  and,  I  think,  the  other  gentleman,  entirely  miscon- 
ceive the  operation  of  this  amendment,  if  it  prevails.  They 
talk  about  the  establishment  of  inferior  tribunals.  Now  it 
is  true,  if  this  amendment  prevails,  that  it  is  left  open  for 
the  legislature,  at  its  future  sessions,  to  establish  such  tribunals 
as  they  may  choose.  They  may  establish  tribunals  for  trials 
by  a  justice  of  the  peace,  or  a  tribunal  for  trials  by  jury,  or 
whatever  tribunals  they  see  fit.  I  think  the  law  as  it  now 
stands  provides  that  there  shall  be  not  less  than  twelve  on  a 
jury.  A  right  of  trial  by  jury  is  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution 
in  every  tribunal  of  civil  action,  either  by  appeal  or  original  juris- 
diction,— by  appeal,  if  the  case  does  not  exceed  the  sum  of  $13.33, 
and  by  original  jurisdiction  if  it  exceeds  that  sum.  Let  us  see, 
Mr.  Chairman,  what  will  be  the  mode  of  procedure  if  these 
amendments  to  the  Constitution  prevail.  An  action  involving 
less  than  $13.33  would  go,  as  now,  before  a  justice  of  the  peace, 
and  by  appeal  would  go  into  the  supreme  court.  An  action 
involving  a  sum  between  $13.33  anc^  $IQo  would  be  com- 
menced in  the  supreme  court,  just  as  is  done  now.  Then  what 
would  happen  to  it?  By  agreement  of  parties,  the  case  goes 
into  the  list  of  civil  cases  to  be  tried.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury 
would  be  waived  for  a  trial  by  the  judge,  if  the  supreme  court 
would  sit,  after  the  jury  is  dismissed  or  before  they  are  sum- 
moned in,  and  try  these  cases  then  ;  and  nobody  would  appeal, 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  1 1 1 

certainly,  to  a  trial  of  these  cases  before  an  impartial,  disinter- 
ested, intelligent  tribunal.  Any  justice  of  our  supreme  court  could 
sit  on  them,  or,  if  not,  can  send  them  to  a  referee.     Now,  talk 
is  made  about  this  right  of  the  poor  man  to  trial  by  jury.     Let 
us  see  whether  it  is  a  right  worth   preserving   to  him  or  not. 
Let  us  consider  the  mode  of  procedure  in  cases  now,  and  the 
mode  of  procedure  that  would   obtain    if  these  amendments  to 
the  Constitution  are  adopted.     The  poor  man  will  pay  a  num- 
ber of  men  before  the  case  gets  into  court.     If  he  is  sued  for  a 
claim  involving  $10,  it  will  go  before  a  justice  of  the  peace.     I 
confess  that  I   have  not   the  highest  respect  for  that  tribunal. 
But   he   commences   his   action  before  a  justice  of  the    peace. 
A  judgment  is  rendered  adverse  to  him.     He  appeals,  and  it 
is  taken  to   the    supreme   court.     It  is  fded  with  five,  six,  or 
seven  hundred  other  cases.     It  is  continued  from  term  to  term 
at  the  expense  of  $8  or  $10.     Then   this   precious  boon  of  the 
poor  man  comes  in.     It  is  brought  to  trial  before  twelve   men, 
and  the  twelve  men  are  divided  over  the  question,  and  they  dis- 
agree.  And  then,  if  I  mistake  not,  I  believe  it  goes  to  the  end  of 
the  docket,  and  after  several  years  more,  when  he  has  had  the 
inestimable    privilege  of  paying    to  gentlemen  of  my  profes- 
sion eight  dollars  for  each  kt  continuance,"  it  is  brought  on  for 
trial  again,  and  he  gets,  perhaps,  a  verdict  of  the  jury  against 
him,  or  not,  as  it  may  be — it  does  not  matter  much  which,  for 
it  has  pretty  nearly  ruined  the  man  by  that  time.     Then   it   is 
transferred  by  exceptions,  and  carried  to  the  other  court,  and 
continued  there  for  a  long  while.    Very  likely  the  verdict  is  set 
aside,  and  it  comes  back  for  trial  by  jury.     And  during  all  this 
time  he  has  not  got  out  of  his  legal  difficulties:   he  has  only 
enriched  his  lawyers.     During  all  this  time  it  has  been  tried  by 
twelve  men,  and  by  the   county,  with   fifteen  or  sixteen  other 
men  paid  by  the  county  in  attendance,  when  the  learned  judge 
is  heartily  tired  at  being  engaged  in  such  a  small  affair ; — be- 
sides, there  are  two  lawyers  wrangling  with  the  sheriff  and  his 
appendages  ;  and  when  he  gets  through  it  has  cost  the  county 
five  dollars  certainly,  or,  rather,  I  mean  fifty  dollars,  good,  for 
every  dollar  of  that  small  matter  of  $10— and  the  man  gets  out 
of  court.     Now,  this   is   the   privilege  that    my  friends   would 
preserve  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  man.     My  experience  has 


112  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

been,  that  litigants  do  not  care  much  about  what  tribunal 
their  cases  come  before,  so  long  as  they  believe  it  is  an  intelli- 
gent and  impartial  one  ;  and  they  have  been  led  to  this  conclu- 
sion by  reason  of  the  chances  for  impartiality  by  the  referee  law. 
I  think  that  I  can  state  that  in  Rockingham  county  more  than 
three  fourths  of  the  cases  that  have  been  given  to  referees  have 
been  settled  upon  the  basis  of  the  report  of  the  referee.  Most 
parties  believe,  I  think,  that  when  they  go  to  law  they  have 
an  honest  case,  and  want  it  tried  with  the  least  expense  and  in 
the  most  expeditious  and  impartial  manner.  That  is  all  they 
ask ;  and  I  believe  that  a  party  is  satisfied  with  the  result, 
whatever  it  may  be,  when  the  case  has  come  before  an  im- 
partial and  honest  tribunal.  I  hope  that  these  amendments 
will  prevail.  I  do  not  believe,  even  if  it  were  for  the  benefit  of 
the  litigant,  that  it  is  the  right  of  any  person  of  the  community 
to  impose  such  a  burden  and  task  upon  the  county  for  the 
purpose  oft  determining  a  case  for  a  sum  less  than  $100. 
It  is  not  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  man,  and  no  disinterested 
or  honest  lawyer  can  so  advise.  I  have  had  men  come  into  my 
place  and  consult  me  about  their  suits,  and  I  have  told  them 
that  the  case  was  so  small  and  the  trouble  so  great  that  I  could 
not  afford  to  attend  to  the  case  ;  for  my  fees  would  have  to  be 
larger  than  what  they  could  obtain  if  it  went  to  trial  by  the 
present  mode  of  procedure.  I  believe  that  if  the  amendment 
prevails,  it  will  open  a  way  by  which  the  poor  man  can  have 
his  rights. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill.  I  desire  to  state  that  the  experience 
of  parties  in  other  parts  of  the  state  is  in  no  sense  analogous  to 
that  of  the  parties  the  gentleman  has  described. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  motion  to  amend  was  de- 
clared carried. 

Whereupon  a  division  was  called  for,  and  23S  gentlemen 
voted  in  the  affirmative  and  11  in  the  negative,  and  the  affirm- 
ative prevailed,  and  the  amendment  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster.  I  wish  to  say  just  a  word  upon 
this  matter.  I  know,  so  far  as  the  people  in  my  vicinity  are 
concerned,  that  they  have  expressed  more  anxiety  about  this 
question  than  any  other  that  will  come  before  this  convention. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  II3 

I  do  not  know  how  it  may  be  in  other  counties.  Now,  the 
proposition  is  to  strike  out  this  article  ;  then  how  do  we  limit 
the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of  the  peace?  This  article  of  the 
Constitution  limits  the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of  the  peace  to 
four  pounds,  or  thirteen  dollars  and  thirty-three  cents.  Now  I 
do  not  know  what  the  experience  of  other  persons  may  be  in 
regard  to  trials  before  justices.  I  know  there  are  some  who  are 
opposed  to  giving  them  any  jurisdiction  in  civil  cases  whatever  ; 
some  arc  in  favor  of  increasing  that  jurisdiction  ;  and  I  think  it 
is  a  question  that  may  depend  somewhat  upon  the  character  of 
our  magistrate.  But  the  question  here  is,  simply,  whether  you 
will  tie  up  the  hands  of  the  legislature,  and  give  them  no  power 
to  act  in  this  matter.  Now,  by  striking  out  this  article,  as  I 
understand  it,  it  does  not  affect  the  question  of  appeal  at  all, — 
does  not  effect  the  question  of  trial  by  jury;  the  simple  question 
is,  whether  we  will  tie  up,  by  retaining  this  article,  the  hands 
of  the  legislature  in  reference  to  this  matter. 

Now,  if  there  is  any  one  thing  I  desire,  it  is,  that  the  expense 
of  litigation  may  be  limited  ;  it  is,  to  devise  some  method 
by  which  causes  can  be  tried  speedily,  as  that  right  is  guaran- 
teed to  us  by  the  Constitution.  I  care  not  how  we  get  at  it. 
It  may  be  that  the  proposition,  which  has  been  adopted  by  this 
committee,  of  constituting  a  certain  tribunal,  may  furnish  the 
desired  remedy  ;  it  may  not.  We  do  not  know  whether  it  will 
be  adopted  by  the  people  or  not.  But  what  harm  can  there  be 
in  leaving  this  question  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  magistrate  in 
civil  causes  to  the  legislature?  As  our  Constitution  now  is, 
they  have  no  power  to  change  that  jurisdiction — not  to  go  be- 
yond the  limit  of  $13.33.  Now  there  are  various  methods 
which  may  be  devised,  by  which,  in  my  opinion,  it  might  be 
changed.  This  matter  may  be  arranged  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  the  justices,  so  as  to  aid  the  people  very  much  in 
this  direction.  That  is  my  judgment.  However  this  is,  let  us 
open  the  door ;  let  us  give  every  opportunity  to  the  legislature 
to  furnish  some  remedy. 

Now  I  believe  every  one  in  the  state  has  the  right  to  trial  by 
jury,  and  I  believe  that  right  to  be  sacred  ;  but  what  I  am  op- 
posed to  is  the  abuse  of  that  right.  Various  instances  have 
been  named.     I  know  of  an  instance  in  my  county  that  occurred 


114  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

a  few  years  ago,  where  the  question  in  litigation  involved  a 
small  three-foot  pine  table.  The  largest  verdict  the  jury  ever 
gave  to  the  plaintiff  was  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  ;  there  were 
some  three  or  four  jury  trials  ;  the  cost  to  which  the  county  was 
subjected  was  some  four  or  five  thousand  dollars,  and  the  ex- 
penses finally  incurred  by  the  plaintiff,  which  only  included  the 
taxable  cost,  amounted  to  thirteen  hundred  dollars.  Now  I  claim 
this  is  an  abuse  of  trial  by  jury,  and  I  claim  it  would  be  infi- 
nitely better  for  our  people,  if  in  some  cases  of  small  causes  a 
verdict  were  wrongly  given,  than  that  this  expense  should  be  in- 
curred. I  believe  that  some  way  can  be  devised  by  which  jus- 
tice can  be  arrived  at  more  speedily,  and  at  less  expense.  My 
experience  is  somewhat  different  from  that  of  others  here,  in 
reference  to  the  Vermont  law.  There  are  features  of  their  law 
which  I  dislike  and  which  I  think  might  be  omitted,  but  I  wish 
here  to  mention  one,  simply,  affecting  the  county  of  Essex, 
which  lies  just  across  the  river  from  the  county  of  Coos.  It 
contains  about  one  half  the  population  of  Coos  county,  and  they 
have  to-day  upon  their  docket  less  than  one  hundred  cases — 
they  average  less  than  one  hundred  ;  and  on  our  docket  in 
Coos  district  we  have  some  seven  or  eight  hundred.  I  men- 
tion that  as  a  fact.  I  believe  it  is  to  be  accounted  for  partly 
on  account  of  their  system.  Perhaps  there  is  nothing  in  their 
system  that  would  be  desirable — I  don't  know  how  that  mat- 
ter is  ;  but  it  is  my  experience  that  if  you  or  I  have  a  note  of 
twenty-five  or  fifty  dollars  against  a  man,  to  which  there  is  no 
possible  defence,  you  bring  a  suit  upon  it  under  our  present 
system,  and  the  result  is,  if  you  find  the  defendant  unscru- 
pulous enough  to  make  an  affidavit  of  some  defence,  you  had 
better  give  him  that  note,  and  as  much  more  with  it,  than  un- 
dertake to  collect  it. 

Now,  I  say  that  is  our  experience  in  our  county ;  and  if  you 
get  such  a  cause  on  the  docket,  you  may  calculate  it  is  three 
years,  at  least,  before  you  reach  it  and  obtain  a  judgment.  I 
mention  this — I  am  not  particular  about  the  course  this  com- 
mittee will  pursue,  but  I  know  the  people  in  my  section  will 
demand  something  of  this  kind.  If  we  strike  out  this  article,  it 
will  simply  leave  this  matter  to  the  legislature  to  control,  from 
time  to  time,  as  they  may  think  expedient. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I  I  3 

Mr.  Slayton  of  Manchester.  The  gentleman  from  Haverhill 
seems  to  think,  that,  by  the  course  of  litigation  in  Vermont  and 
the  course  of  litigation  in  New  Hampshire,  the  judicature  of 

New  Hampshire  is  superior  to  that  of  Vermont.  I  have  noth- 
ing unkind  to  say  of  my  native  state,  nor  have  I  anything 
unkind  to  say  of  my  adopted  state,  but  I  think  that  if  the  gen- 
tleman will  look  back  over  the  judges  of  Vermont,  he  will 
remember  a  Redfield,  a  Poland,  and  a  Peck;  and  when  he 
looks  back  over  the  judiciary  of  Vermont,  he  will  find  it  equal 
to  that  of  this  state.  So  much  for  that  matter.  1  was  a  trial 
justice  in  the  state  of  Vermont  for  eight  years:  during  that 
time  civil  causes  were  coming  to  me  continually.  I  remember 
but  two  that  went  up  by  appeal.  I  think  the  gentleman  from 
Ossipee  misunderstood  me  in  one  matter.  It  was  this  :  I  said 
that  the  neighbors  would  understand  the  cause  better  than  a 
magistrate  at  a  distance,  and  they  could  decide  it  better  than  if 
taken  off  to  the  county  court,  where  the  jurors  could  know 
nothing  about  the  character  of  the  parties  and  the  witnesses. 
Some  men  are  always  in  law,  always  in  litigation,  and  for  the 
most  trivial  causes.  I  hope  some  way  can  be  found  by  which 
the  expenses  of  these  small  causes  can  be  lessened.  I  do  not 
think  the  people  of  Vermont  would  do  away  with  the  small 
trials  by  jury  before  these  trial  justices.  I  do  not  think  it 
would  be  impossible  for  the  legislature  to  change  these  trials 
before  a  justice  if  the  people  were  not  satisfied, — so  where  is 
the  harm  of  trying  it? 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  object  the 
gentleman  from  Lancaster  [Mr.  Burns]  desires  to  attain, 
could  not  be  attained  by  striking  out  the  article  he  proposes. 
It  seems  to  me  that  if  this  is  stricken  out,  then  the  legislature 
will  have  no  power  to  act  upon  the  matter  at  all.  I  myself 
think  that  it  would  not  be  wise  for  this  convention  to  do  any- 
thing more  than  they  should  deem  absolutely  necessary  lor  them 
to  do.  If  we  send  out  a  great  number  of  constitutional  amend- 
ments, so  that  it  will  look  to  the  people  like  a  new  constitution, 
so  that  they  will  hardly  recognize  it  as  the  old  one  under  which 
they  had  lived  so  long,  it  would  share  the  fate  of  the  old  amend- 
ments of  1S50,  and  be  rejected  next  March  by  the  people.  Now 
always  in  New  Hampshire  the  justices  of  the  peace  have  had 


Il6  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

jurisdiction  of  these  small  matters  that  amounted  to  thirteen 
dollars  and  thirty-three  cents.  I  have  not  any  more  confidence 
in  these  justices  than  anybody  else.  Sometimes  one  can  be 
found  before  whom  one  would  like  to  bring  a  matter ;  but 
almost  eveiy  lawyer  has  his  particular  justice,  before  whom  he 
brings  all  his  cases.  The  cost  before  a  justice  of  the  peace  is 
very  small  indeed. 

And  again  :  we  all  know  how  easy  it  is  to  get  a  commission 
of  justice  of  the  peace  ;  we  all  see  how  many  are  appointed. 
In  a  word,  anybody  that  wants  a  commission  can  get  it.  By 
our  Constitution,  the  judge  is  appointed  for  life  and  the  justice  of 
the  peace  for  five  years.  If  you  strike  this  article  out  of  the 
Constitution, — allowing  the  legislature  to  appoint  justices  of  the 
peace,  giving  them  jurisdiction  to  the  amount  of  thirteen  dol- 
lars and  thirty-three  cents, — the  legislature  would  have  no  power 
to  confer  any  jurisdiction  upon  them  at  all — none  whatever. 
So  it  strikes  me  we  had  better  leave  it  as  it  is.  Now  I  do  not 
think  I  should  be  quite  willing  to  have  the  legislature  elect  a 
trial  justice  with  these  powers,  and  have  him  try  a  case  with 
half  a  dozen  jurors  sitting  around  his  bars,  or  on  a  log — any- 
where they  could  find  a  place.  I  do  not  like  that  kind  of  a 
trial ;  I  do  not  think  it  is  demanded,  either. 

By  bringing  causes  in  the  supreme  court,  as  we  have  but 
one,  and  referring  the  cause  the  first  term  to  some  man  com- 
petent to  decide  it,  to  whom  both  parties  agree,  and  the  next 
term  have  judgment  on  it — I  do  not  think  a  cheaper  or  a  better 
jurisdiction  than  that  can  be  had. 

Mr.  Burns  of  Lancaster.  I  wish  simply  to  answer  a  few  of 
the  remarks  of  our  friend  from  Exeter.  Now  I  understand  that 
this  Article  77  was  incorporated  into  the  Constitution  for  this 
very  purpose  of  limiting  the  jurisdiction  of  magistrates.  In 
Article  4  there  is  a  provision  in  the  Constitution  that  "the  gen- 
eral court  shall  forever  have  full  power  and  authority  to  erect 
and  constitute  judicatories  and  courts  of  record,  or  other  courts, 
to  be  holden  in  the  name  of  the  state,  for  the  hearing,  trying,  and 
determining  all  manner  of  crimes,  offences,  pleas,  processes, 
plaints,  actions,  causes,  matters  and  things  whatsoever,  arising 
or  happening  within  this  state,  or  between  or  concerning  persons 
inhabiting,  or  residing,  or  brought  within  the  same,  whether  the 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  l\J 

same  be  criminal  or  civil,  or  whether  the  crimes  he  capital  or  not 
capital,  and  whether  the  said  pleas  he  real,  personal,  or  mixed, 
and  for  the  awarding  and  issuing  execution  thereon  :  to  which 
courts  and  judicatories  are  hereby  given  and  granted  full  power 
and  authority,  from  time  to  time,  to  administer  oaths  or  affirma- 
tions for  the  better  discovery  of  truth  in  any  matter  in  contro- 
versy, or  depending  before  them."  Now,  by  striking  out  this 
article,  which  forbids,  prevents,  the  legislature  from  passing 
any  law  upon  this  subject,  why  it  is  perfectly  clear  to  my  mind 
that  the  legislature  would  have  authority  to  erect  the  tribunal 
in  their  own  way,  having  such  jurisdiction  as  they  saw  fit,  or 
not  any.  Can  there  be  any  doubt  about  that?  I  should  like  to 
have  the  gentleman  from  Exeter  explain — referring  to  the  Con- 
stitution, to  the  law  that  would  interfere  with  this.  I  believe 
this  is  the  only  state  where  the  jurisdiction  of  the  magistrate  is 
limited  to  such  trifling  sums  as  in  this,  and  you  will  find  noth- 
ing in  that  Constitution  that  limits  it  if  this  amendment  is 
adopted  ;  and  as  a  matter  of  course,  then,  the  legislature  would 
have  the  power  to  regulate  the  whole  matter.  Individually,  I 
admire  the  shrewdness  of  my  friend  in  bringing  up  other  plans 
to  decide  the  matter  of  jury  trials.  By  striking  out  this  article 
we  do  not  adopt  any  plan  here  ;  we  do  not  prescribe  any  plan 
whatever :  it  leaves  it  to  the  legislature.  Now,  my  notion  is 
this,  that  the  mass  of  the  people  demand  some  improvement 
in  this  direction  ;  and  I  am  in  favor  of  giving  the  power  to  our 
legislature  to  make  improvements,  if  any  can  be  devised.  It 
may  be  necessary  from  time  to  time  to  change  the  law.  It  is 
the  only  way  proposed  by  which  we  can  determine  what,  under 
all  circumstances,  is  the  best — that  is,  to  try  it.  Make  some 
provision,  try  that,  and  see  how  it  works.  If  it  works  well, 
keep  it ;  if  not,  change  it.  But  by  tying  up  the  hands  of  our 
legislature  they  are  powerless,  and  we  have  no  remedy. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  gentleman 
from  Lancaster,  as  the  Constitution  now  reads,  has  exactly 
what  he  wants.  I  beg  your  attention  to  the  reading  of  the 
article.  By  the  Constitution,  justices  of  the  peace  have  no 
jurisdiction  whatever  ;  as  it  now  stands,  they  have  no  jurisdic- 
tion whatever; — but  the  legislature  may,  if  they  see  lit,  grant 
them  jurisdiction  in  a  sum  not  exceeding  four  pounds.     But  if 


Il8  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

the  legislature  do  not  see  fit  to  grant  them  that  jurisdiction, 
then  it  is  withheld  ;  and  they  have  the  power  to  elect  such  a 
tribunal  as  has  been  suggested,  or  any  other  tribunal  which 
they  may  see  fit,  for  the  trial  of  these  small  cases.  It  is  an  ob- 
jection, as  has  been  urged  by  the  gentlemen  who  have  preceded 
me,  that  these  justices  of  the  peace  are  not  always  a  tribunal 
where  men  can  get  justice  ;  and  I  believe  that  some  other  tri- 
bunal should  be  created  in  their  place,  because,  as  has  been 
well  said,  we  are  often  carried  before  a  man  who  does  not 
understand  his  duties,  who  has  not  the  learning  and  capacity  to 
do  justice  between  the  parties,  and,  what  is  worse,  as  was  said 
by  a  justice  in  Dover,  that  "  he  and  an  honorable  gentleman, 
whose  portrait  hangs  in  this  hall,  had  never  lost  but  one  case, 
and  that  was  where  the  honorable  gentleman  suggested  to  the 
court  perhaps  it  would  be  a  little  too  barefaced  for  the  court  in 
that  case  to  give  him  a  verdict."  We  have  a  class  of  men  in  the 
pi'ofession,  and  they  are  too  numerous,  who  are  disposed  to  bring 
these  small  matters  before  men  of  their  own  selection, — men 
who  are  not  impartial,  who  do  not  understand  the  rights  of  the 
parties  ;  and  if  the  right  of  appeal  is  taken  away,  and  no  right 
of  trial  by  jury  is  given,  these  men  would  sutler  much  injustice: 
but,  as  the  Constitution  is  now,  the  legislature  can  attend  to  that 
by  appointing  trial  justices,  in  a  county  or  in  a  town,  so  that 
all  men  can  have  an  impartial  trial.  But  I  rise  particularly  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  fact  that  the  Consti- 
tution gives  no  powers  in  the  least,  but  empowers  the  legisla- 
ture to  give  justices  power  if  it  sees  fit.  I  think  the  article  is 
well  as  it  stands,  and  we  ought  to  be  cautious  in  giving  too 
many  changes  to  the  people,  because  it  may  be  the  means  of 
nullifying  all  that  we  shall  do  here. 

Mr.  Wallace  of  Rochester.  I  think  the  suggestion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Lancaster  is  right  in  regard  to  this  matter.  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  think  I  would  have  no  objection,  instead  of  pass- 
ing the  motion  to  strike  out  the  article,  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment to  strike  out  four  pounds,  and  fix  on  some  sum  not  to 
exceed  a  certain  sum.  My  object  is,  to  give  the  legislature 
power — perhaps  it  would  not  be  advisable  to  give  them  any 
jurisdiction — to  give  justices  of  the  peace  jurisdiction  in  certain 
civil  cases. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I  19 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  The  mover  can  amend  his  own 
motion. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Burns  of  Lancaster  withdrew  his  motion  to 
strike  out  the  whole  of  Article  77,  and  moved  to  amend  that 
article  by  striking  out  the  words  "  four  pounds,"  and  inserting 
the  words  "  one  hundred  dollars." 

Mr.  O'Connor  of  Manchester.  I  have  one  suggestion  to 
offer,  sir,  in  this  regard;  that  is  this:  We  had  better  let  well 
enough  alone.  It  seems  to  me,  sir,  that  this  article  as  it  now 
stands,  with  Judge  Clark's  amendment,  is  well  enough.  There 
is  one  great  danger,  sir,  in  the  labor  in  which  we  are  engaged, 
and  it  is  this  :  I  take  it  that  we  may  do  a  little  too  much,  and  the 
people  will  reject  our  work  and  set  it  aside — the  good  that  we 
may  do,  with  the  bad  ; — that,  sir,  is  what  I  am  afraid  of.  Even 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  learned  gentleman  [Judge 
Clark]  is  open  to  this  objection,  it  seems  to  me, — and  for  that 
reason  I  did  not  vote  for  it, — that  it  was  making  too  sweep- 
ing a  change.  We  have  all  heard  a  good  deal  of  talk  about 
"  the  sacred  right  of  trial  by  jury  ;"  but,  sir,  I  believe  the  ma- 
jority— a  large  majority — of  gentlemen  on  the  floor  of  this  house 
think  that  it  has  got  to  be  a  tremendous  evil  on  some  occasions  ; 
and,  in  a  large  majority  of  petty  cases,  we  want  protection 
from  this  trial  by  jury.  My  suggestion  would  have  been  some- 
thing to  this  e fleet :  that  the  article  stand  as  it  is,  with  a  few 
words  added  in  this  way, — that  in  all  cases  the  right  of  trial  by 
jury  should  be  held  inviolate.  That,  sir,  would  give  us  the 
benefit  of  amending  without  striking  out  anything.  That  is  my 
idea  of  it. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverill.  Let  me  inquire  of  some  gentleman 
on  the  floor  who  would  like  litigation  made  easy, — who  would 
like  litigation  taught  in  ten  lessons,  as  French  is  sometimes 
taught, — how  many  courts  of  litigation  we  would  have  in  the 
state  here  ;  how  many  justices  of  the  peace  we  would  have. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  hardly  think  the  convention,  or 
the  people,  are  ready  for  the  adoption  of  a  measure  of  this  kind. 
You  are  extending  the  limits,  or  giving  the  legislature  the 
power  of  extending  the  limits,  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  justices 


120  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

of  the  peace  to  the  sum  of  one  hundred  dollars.  I  hardly  think 
the  people  are  prepared  for  that.  It  must  operate  as  a  very  great 
hardship  upon  the  poor  man.  Your  opponent,  the  plaintiff, 
goes  to  a  lawyer  and  desires  to  bring  an  action  ;  that  lawyer 
may  select  his  own  magistrate  before  whom  that  case  shall  be 
tried  ; — and  we  all  know  that  we  have  too  many  justices  of  the 
peace  who  are  not  competent  for  the  discharge  of  that  duty. 
You  have  no  other  recourse  but  to  go  before  that  man  for 
trial.  Then,  when  you  have  had  your  trial,  if  you  are  a 
poor  man,  and  he  decides  it  against  you — as  justices  of  the 
peace  are  very  likely  to  do — then  an  appeal  has  to  be  taken  ; 
and  what  then  is  to  be  done?  The  poor  man,  under  the  law 
as  it  now  stands,  must  furnish  surety  for  the  payment  of  costs 
— a  hardship  imposed  upon  poor  men,  which  many  could  not 
take  upon  themsleves  ;  they  would  be  unable  to  procure  the 
sureties  ;  and  in  such  a  case,  the  rights  of  a  poor  man  could  be 
entirely  taken  away  by  the  incompetency,  or  want  of  integrity, 
or  want  of  learning,  on  the  part  of  the  man  who  has  tried  his 
case.  It  seems  to  me,  that  as  the  article  now  stands  it  is  well 
enough.  As  the  article  now  stands,  the  legislature  may  create 
a  proper  tribunal ;  appoint  some  man  that  is  learned,  that  is 
honest  and  fair,  as  a  trial  justice,  in  the  town  where  the  cause  is 
to  be  tried  ;  or,  they  may  create  a  court  in  the  county,  which 
may  be  the  county  court ;  or,  they  may  create  two  or  three  mag- 
istrates, who  may  have  jurisdiction  ; — and  thus  it  stands  well 
enough.  But  the  committee  now  is  upon  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Lancaster  [Mr.  Burns],  whether  justices  of  the 
peace — any  justice  of  the  peace — in  your  town,  shall  have  juris- 
diction to  the  amount  of  one  hundred  dollars  ; — and  there  is  not 
a  man  here  but  what  would  exercise  a  great  choice  among  the 
justices  in  his  town.  There  is  not  a  man  here,  but,  if  he  looked 
over  the  list  of  the  justices  of  the  peace  in  his  town,  would  see 
that  there  are  many  there  with  whom  he  would  not  risk  his 
rights  ; — therefore  I  think  we  had  better  leave  it  where  it  is, 
and  let  the  legislature  have  the  management  of  this  matter, 
and  appoint  suitable  men  who  shall  see  that  justice  and  right 
are  done  between  parties,  and  not  leave  it  to  the  ignorance 
and  incompetency  of  any  justice  of  the  peace. 

Mr.  Bedell  of  Colebrook.    I  wish  to  say  that  this  amendment 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  121 

is  just  what  the  people  want:  to  extend  the  jurisdiction  of  jus- 
tices to  one  hundred  dollars, — that  is  what  they  want,  and  that 
is  what  they  sent  their  delegates  here  for. 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua.  I  dislike  to  take  too  much  time 
of  the  committee,  hut  I  desire,  for  a  moment,  to  explain  the 
operation  of  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Lancaster  [Mr.  Burns].  Not  that  I  have  any  personal  care 
whether  his  amendment  is  voted  up  or  down,  except  as  I  have 
a  desire  for  the  public  welfare.  Now  we  will  suppose  that  I 
live  in  the  town  of  Lancaster,  and  have  trouble  with  my  friend 
who  so  ably  represents  the  town  here.  He  brings  an  action 
against  me,  and  claims  damages  of  one  hundred  dollars  ;  and 
my  friend  can  select  from  the  justices  of  Lancaster  the  man 
whom  he  supposes  most  opposed  to  me,  make  a  writ  out  re- 
turnable before  that  man,  and  I  am  obliged  to  appear  before 
him  ;  and,  if  the  legislature  takes  the  action  which  it  may  take, 
under  the  action  proposed  I  may  have  no  remedy  ;  for,  if  the 
legislature  say  there  can  be  no  jury  trials  when  the  subject- 
matter  is  one  hundred  dollars  or  less,  then  it  will  follow,  legit- 
imately, I  suppose,  that  the  action  of  this  justice  of  the  peace 
in  the  town  of  Lancaster  would  close  all  my  right.  Well,  of 
course  that  would  be  conclusive,  and  I  could  not  help  myself. 
I  hope  the  committee  will  consider  this  a  moment  before  they 
consent  to  give  a  justice  of  the  peace  conclusive  jurisdiction  in 
matters  of  this  size. 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner.  I  want  to  say  this:  that  I  came 
here  under  instructions  from  the  people  I  conversed  with  in  my 
town  to  seek  to  get  the  jurisdiction  of  justices  increased  to  one 
hundred  dollars.  I  do  not  know  how  it  is  in  other  towns  in 
this  state.  I  know  in  some  states  they  have  laws  giving  rights 
to  either  party — the  right,  as  it  is  called,  to  swear  a  case 
away  to  any  justice.  I  suppose  that  a  course  might  be  adopted 
by  the  legislature  providing  for  a  trial  justice  to  be  appointed. 
I  have  no  fear  but  that  it  could  be  done  ;  but  I  had  felt  that  we 
ought  to  provide  some  way  to  obtain  larger  jurisdiction  for 
justices  of  the  peace,  so  that  the  people  can  commence  their 
suits  at  home.  And,  if  they  cannot,  it  will  be  time  enough  to 
argue  against  this  proposition  when   some  particular  method 


122  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

has  been  put  in  writing,  and  it  is  suggested  that  it  may  be 
adopted  by  the  legislature,— then  we  can  find  fault  with  it. 
Now,  that  is  not  the  question  here  at  all.  So  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned, I  am  not  prepared  at  the  present  time  to  discuss  any 
particular  law  the  legislature  might  pass;  but  it  is  simply  to 
strike  out  all  impediments  in  the  Constitution  to  their  action, 
that. they  may  devise  some  method.  I  know  that,  before  com- 
ing down  here,  a  great  many  of  my  constituents  talked  with  me, 
and  said, '•  Oh!  you  lawyers  will  control  this  convention."  I 
do  not  want  that  said  of  me,  whether  it  amounts  to  anything  or 
not.  I  do  not  believe  the  profession  is  opposed  to  anything 
that  will  give  the  people  speedy  justice.  I  do  not  believe 
half  that,  because,  if  I  did,  the  Lord  knows  I  would  go  for  the 
abolition  of  the  legal  profession  entirely.  That  is  one  i-eason  I 
have  urged  it  so  strongly  upon  this  convention. 

Mr.  Hardy  of  Keene.  I  would  inquire  if  this  question  can 
be  divided.  I  can  conceive  that  there  are  a  great  many  mem- 
bers who  might  be  in  favor  of  striking  out  "  four  pounds," 
who  might  not  be  favor  of  inserting  one  hundred  dollars,  or 
twenty,  or  thirty. 

The  Chairman.  I  understand  the  rule  to  be,  where  the  mo- 
tion is  to  strike  out  and  insert,  it  is  not  divisible. 

Mr.  Hardy.  I  should  like  an  opportunity  to  vote  on  strik- 
ing out  and  inserting  separately. 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  That  applies  to  the  convention, 
and  we  have  no  such  rule  applying  to  the  committee  of  the 
whole.  That  being  so,  if  the  gentleman  desires  it,  he  can  call 
for  a  division. 

Mr.  Hardy.  I  call  for  a  division  on  striking  out  and  insert- 
ing. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  Pardon  me  for  trespassing  on  your 
time  one  moment.  I  think  that  this  matter  is  not  now  well 
understood.  I  do  not  understand  any  gentleman  who  has 
spoken  upon  this  question  to  be  opposed  to  having  a  tribunal 
with  this  jurisdiction  ;  but,  while  we  have  so  many  justices  of 
the  peace  all  through  New  Hampshire,  and  in  every  town,  we 
are  opposed  to  having  each  and  every  one  of  those  justices 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  123 

having  the  control  of  our  rights  to  the  extent  of  owe  hundred 
dollars;  and  we  think  the  legislature  ought  not  to  have  the 
power  to  grant  these  rights  to  such  a  multitude  of  men.  If  it 
were  limited,  so  that  only  justices  who  were  abundantly  compe- 
tent for  tills  business  were  appointed,  I  should  go  most  heartily 
for  that;  but  the  legislature  may  provide,  under  the  name  of 
trial  justices,  exactly  that  tribunal.  Select  good  men,  and  only 
good  men,  from  a  few  towns  ;  provide  trial  justices  of  that  class, 
and  you  would  have  your  same  speed  in  litigation  that  you 
would  have  under  this,  and  very  much  more  so,  because,  if  you 
had  only  competent  men  to  act,  parties  would  be  satisfied,  and 
appeals  and  continued  litigation  would  not  go  on.  It  is  a  very 
unpleasant  thing  for  counsel  to  hear  his  clients  swear— and 
most  men  who  go  to  litigation  do — and  some  of  them  swear 
pretty  strongly  ; — they  will  swear  at  the  incompetency  and 
the  recklessness  of  justice,  as  determining  their  rights  against 
them. 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated, — Shall  the  words  ;i  four 
pounds"  be  stricken  out? — it  was  decided  in  the  affirmative. 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated, — Shall  the  words  "  one 
hundred  dollars  "  be  inserted? — it  was  decided  in  the  affirma- 
tive. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover  called  for  a  division, 
when  15S  voted  in  the  affirmative  and  S7  in  the  negative,  and 
the  affirmative  prevailed,  and  the  amendment  was  declared 
adopted. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill.  I  beg  leave  to  question  the  vote.  I 
would  inquire  if  there  are  two  thirds  present  and  voting.  I  be- 
lieve, under  the  parliamentary  rule,  it  is  necessary  that  two 
thirds  be  present;  and  I  understand  the  ordinary  parliamentary 
rule  to  prevail  in  the  absence  of  any  other  rule. 

The  Chairman.  The  impression  of  the  chair  is,  that  where 
more  than  a  majority  vote — as  in  this  case — no  two-thirds  rule 
applies. 

Mr.  Page.  It  was  not  understood  in  this  part  of  the  hall. 
I  desire  that  there  may  be  a  re-statement  of  the  ruling  on  my 
point  of  order. 


124  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

The  Chairman.  The  ruling  is,  that  a  majority  of  the  com- 
mittee have  voted  that  it  does  not  require  two  thirds  of  those 
who  vote  to  cany  it,  but  that  a  majority  is  sufficient ;  and  there- 
fore the  amendment  is  adopted. 

Mr.  Hall  of  Manchester  introduced  the  following  amend- 
ment : 

In  Article  S3,  after  the  word  "  country,"  insert  the  following  : 
"  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  no  money  raised  by  taxation  shall 
ever  be  granted  or  applied  for  the  use  of  the  schools  or  institu- 
tions of  any  religious  sect  or  denomination." 

Mr.  Hall.     I  think  the  object  of  this  amendment  will  be  ap- 
parent to  every  member  of  the  committee.     It  is  designed  to 
prevent,  in  this  state,  the  appropriation  of  any  money  raised  by 
taxation  for  purposes  of  sectarian  education.    I  think  it  is  plain 
that  the  framers  of  our  Constitution  intended  to  provide  for  a 
system  of  public  education,  and  that  they  intended  that  that 
system  should  be  supported  by  money  raised  and  paid  by  the 
people  of  the  state,  to  be  applied  to  schools  for  the  purpose  of 
educating  all  the  people.     And  I  think  it  is  certain,  too,  that 
had    they  supposed    that    in    any  coming    time    money  would 
stand  in  danger  of  being  diverted  from  that  purpose,  they  would 
have  made  some  provision  against  it.     I  do  not  propose  now, 
Mr.  Chairman,  to  offer  any  argument  to  show  the  necessity  of 
this  amendment  at  the  present  time.     It  is  enough  to  say,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  the  causes  which  in  other  states  have  operated 
to  give  millions  of  the  people's  money  to  sectarian  schools  and 
institutions  are  operating  here.    Twenty-two  states  in  this  Union 
have  seen  the  necessity,  or  the  wisdom,  of  adopting  similar 
amendments  to  their  Constitutions.     I  think  it  would  be  wise 
for  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  to  anticipate  that  danger,  and 
at  this  time   to    put  the  provision  I    have  suggested  into  her 
Constitution.     It  has  been  said  here,  Mr.   Chairman,  that  we 
should  offer  no  amendments  that  are  not  simple  and  practicable. 
I  submit  there  are  no  questions  that  can  come  before  this  con- 
vention  that  are  more  practical   or  of  more  vital  importance 
than  those  which   concern  our  public  schools,   and  looking  to 
their  protection  against  all  assaults.     I  do  not  know,  sir,  that 
the  wording  of  this  amendment  which  I  have  offered  is  the  best, 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  12$ 

or  that  the  place  in  which  I  propose  to  put  it  is  the  hest ;  but  I 
would  like  to  have  the  committee  adopt  it,  that  it  may  go  before 
the  suitable  committee  and  receive  further  consideration. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport.  The  committee  has  been  in  session 
a  long  while,  and  various  subject-matters  have  been  brought 
before  it  for  consideration  ;  and  I  move  that  the  committee  do 
now  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

And  the  motion  was  adopted. 

IN   CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Sargent,  chairman,  reported  that  the  committee  of  the 
whole  had  had  under  consideration  so  much  of  Part  Second  of 
the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  judicial  department,  and  have 
adopted  the  following  amendments,  viz. : 

To  Article  73.  At  the  end  of  the  article  add  the  following 
words,  viz.  :  'k  but  in  no  case  shall  such  removal  be  for  politi- 
cal reasons." 

To  Article  77.  Strike  out  the  following  words  :  "  so  that  a 
trial  by  jury  in  the  last  resort  may  be  had." 

To  Article  77.  Strike  out  the  words  "  four  pounds,"  and  in- 
sert the  words  "  one  hundred  dollars." 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua,  the  convention  took 
a  recess  till  seven  o'clock  this  evening. 

EVENING. 

Convention,  at  seven  o'clock  p.  m.,  assembled. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord,  the  convention  re- 
solved itself  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  judicial  part 
of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution. 

IN    COMMITTEE    OF    THE    WHOLE. 

(Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord  in  the  chair.) 

The  amendment  to  Article  S3,  introduced  by  Mr.  Hall  of 
Manchester,  being  before  the  committee, — 


126  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

Mi".  Smith  of  Peterborough  moved  to  amend  the  amendment 
as  follows : 

By  substituting  in  place  thereof,  the  following:  "No  public 
property,  and  no  public  revenue  of  the  state  or  any  municipal 
corporation,  shall  be  appropriated  to,  or  made  or  used  for,  the 
support  of  any  school,  educational  or  other  institutions,  under 
the  control  of  any  religious  or  anti-religious  sect,  organization, 
or  denomination,  or  wherein  the  particular  creeds  or  tenets 
shall  be  read  or  taught  in  any  school  or  institution,  supported  in 
whole  or  in  part  by  such  revenue  or  loan  of  credit ;  and  no 
such  appropriation  or  loan  of  credit  shall  be  made  to  any 
religious  or  anti-religious  sect,  organization,  or  denomination, 
or  to  promote  its  interests  or  tenets.  This  shall  not  be  construed 
to  prohibit  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  any  school  or  institution  ; 
and  it  shall  not  have  the  effect  to  impair  the  rights  of  property 
already  vested." 

Mr.  Smith  of  Strafford.  I  move  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
the  resolution  relating  to  the  83rd  Article  in  the  Constitution 
be  indefinitely  postponed.  I  do  this  for  two  reasons, — first,  that 
I  do  not  think  it  needs  amending;  and  second,  if  we  continue 
to  amend  the  Constitution  in  the  way  we  have  begun,  by  the 
time  we  send  it  to  our  constituents  they  will  not  know  it  is  the 
Constitution  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  they  will 
serve  our  amendments  as  they  did  those  made  in  1S50.  I  think, 
sir,  we  had  better  indefinitely  postpone  the  whole  matter. 

The  Chairman.  The  motion,  I  think,  is  out  of  order.  The 
rules  of  the  convention  do  not  apply  for  any  indefinite  postpone- 
ment, and,  if  they  did,  I  do  not  think  they  would  be  applicable 
here.  What  we  want  is  to  report  to  the  convention  some  defi- 
nite action.  The  motion  is  on  substituting  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Peterborough  for  that  of  the  gentleman  from 
Manchester. 

Mr.  Smith.  If  it  is  not  in  order  to  move  an  indefinite  post- 
ponement, I  would  move  to  pass  the  consideration  of  the  article 
for  the  present. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  be  in  order.  That,  I  take  it, 
would  take  precedence  of  either  of  the  other  motions. 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  127 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  motion  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough.  My  object  in  making  that  amend- 
ment was  this  :  we  have,  during  this  convention,  stricken  out 
a  religious  qualification,  which  is  right.  And  now  I  pro- 
pose to  place  the  school  interests  where  they  will  be  public  ; 
where  all  the  children  in  this  state  can  be  educated  alike,  and 
where  education  will  be  given  to  all.  I  propose  to  guard  those 
interests  so  that  the  public  funds  and  public  property  of  the 
state,  or  of  any  municipal  corporation  or  town,  shall  never  be 
used  to  support  and  sustain  any  one  particular  sect  or  denomi- 
nation. I  make  it  so  that  the  children  of  every  inhabitant  of 
this  state  shall  alike  be  permitted  to  attend  the  public  and  com- 
mon schools  of  this  state,  and  share  alike  their  blessings  and 
their  privileges.  I  also  add  the  last  clause  for  this  reason  :  that 
any  property  heretofore  vested  in  any  of  these  schools  shall  not 
be  disturbed  ;  that  these  schools  and  institutions  shall  have  and 
maintain  and  control  whatever  property  has  been  vested  in 
them  heretofore  ;  and,  also,  that  nothing  in  this  section  shall  be 
so  construed  as  to  exclude  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  our  com- 
mon schools, — leaving  that  to  every  town  and  every  city  in  this 
state  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  it  shall  be  read  or  not. 
And  I  believe  that  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution  is  what 
is  required  ;  it  is  a  safeguard.  And  it  is  substantially — although 
the  words  are  changed  a  vcrylittle — the  same  amendment  passed 
by  the  senate  of  the  United  States,  which,  if  it  had  passed  the 
house,  would  have  been  submitted  to  every  state  in  this  Union 
for  ratification. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Canterbury  called  for  the  reading  of  the  amend- 
ment.    It  was  read  by  the  clerk. 

Mr.  Hall  of  Manchester.  I  believe  that  any  amendment 
which  we  ma','  propose  touching  this  question,  should  be  in  the 
fewest  words  and  of  the  simplest  character.  I  cannot  see  that 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough 
changes  the  force  of  the  amendment  which  I  offered  in  any 
way,  or  improves  it.  I  think  you  will  find,  upon  examination, 
that  that  which  I  offered  covers  the  whole  ground.  There  is  no 
necessity  of  referring  to  the  question  of  the  Bible,  or  of  proper- 
ty.    It  simply  provides  that,  hereafter,  no  money  raised  by  tax- 


128  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

ation  shall  ever  be  applied  to  sectarian  schools,  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  it  does  it  in  simple  and  straightforward  language,  such 
as  the  people  can  all  understand. 

Upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  to  the  amend- 
ment was  rejected. 

Whereupon  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Hall  of  Manchester  was 
adopted. 

Mr.  Slayton  of  Manchester.  I  am  not  quite  fully  persuaded 
in  my  own  mind  whether  that  clause  [Article  97 — "  value 
thereof  shall  be  computed  in  silver  at  six  shillings  and  eight 
pence  per  ounce  "]  should  be  left  there  or  not.  I  believe  the 
pence  used  in  those  days  were  equal  to  ij  cents,  and  that  the 
worth  of  the  silver  ounce  was  $1.12.  Since  that  time  silver 
has  been  worth  60  pence  per  ounce  sterling,  which  would  be 
$1.20; — also,  a  few  months  ago  it  was  worth  4SI,  and  within 
the  week  it  is  worth  56J — equal  to  $1.13  ; — so  that  to-day  the 
silver  ounce  is  worth  within  one  cent  of  what  it  was  one  hun- 
dred years  ago.  Whether  or  not  we  should  stick  to  that  old 
reckoning  in  regard  to  silver  I  could  not  say. 

Mr  Gallinger  of  Concord  moved  to  strike  out  Article  97,  but 
the  same  was  rejected. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter, 

Ordered.  That  the  committee  rise  and  report  to  the  conven- 
tion. 

IN    CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Sargent,  chairman,  reported  that  the  committee  of  the 
whole  had  had  under  consideration  so  much  of  Part  Second  of 
the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  judicial  department,  and  have 
adopted  the  following  amendment  in  addition  to  the  amend- 
ments reported  during  the  afternoon. 

To  Article  83.  After  the  word  "  country"  insert  the  follow- 
ing :  "  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  no  money  raised  by  taxation 
shall  ever  be  granted  or  applied  for  the  use  of  the  schools  or  in- 
stitutions of  any  religious  sect  or  denomination." 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I  29 

Whereupon  the  several  amendments  reported  from  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  were  adopted,  as  follows  : 

To  Article  73.  At  the  end  of  the  article  add  the  following: 
"  but  in  no  case  shall  such  removal  be  for  political  reasons." 

To  Article  77-  Strike  out  the  following  words :  "so  that  a 
trial  by  jury  in  the  last  resort  may  be  had." 

To  Article  77.  Strike  out  the  words  "  four  pounds,"  and  in- 
sert the  words  "  one  hundred  dollars." 

To  Article  S3.  After  the  word  "  country,"  insert  the  follow- 
ing :  "  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  no  money  raised  by  taxation 
shall  ever  be  granted  or  applied  for  the  use  of  the  schools  or  in- 
stitutions of  any  religious  sect  or  denomination." 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter,  the  convention  resolved 
itself  into  the  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  legislative  depart- 
ment of  the  constitution. 

IN    COMMITTEE    OF    THE    WHOLE. 

(Mr.  Putnam  of  Warren  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner.  When  the  matter  of  reducing  the 
house  of  representatives  was  up,  the  other  day,  some  gentlemen 
asked  me  some  questions  with  reference  to  the  amendments 
which  I  had  proposed,  reducing  the  house  of  representatives. 
At  the  time  I  had  not  the  figures  at  hand.  I  will  now  ask  the 
indulgence  of  the  committee  a  few  moments,  to  answer  the  gen- 
tleman from  Keene  [Mr.  Hardy],  and  one  or  two  other  gentle- 
men who  asked  me  some  questions  with  reference  to  it. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  do  not  understand  the  gentleman 
to  be  in  order. 

The  Chairman.  We  were  discussing,  at  the  last  sitting,  the 
proposition  of  the  definition  of  a  ratable  poll. 

Mr.  Ordway.  If  the  gentleman  will  excuse  me  a  moment — 
if  he  desires  to  speak,  I  will  give  way. 

Mr.  Wheeler.     I  desire  to  withdraw  the  proposition  which  I 
submitted  on  Friday  last — on  consideration,  and  talk  with  sev- 
eral members  of  the  convention  and  with   my  constituency — 
and  I  will  offer  the  following  as  a  substitute  :   Ratable  polls 
9 


I30  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

shall  mean,  male  residents,  as  assessed  in  town,  who  have  paid 
their  taxes. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter.  I  should  like  to  inquire  whether 
that  excludes  in  the  computation  persons  seventy  years  of  age. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I  do  not  understand  that  it  does  exclude  that 
class  of  gentlemen.  If  the  law,  as  it  stands  at  the  present  time, 
excludes  that  class  of  gentlemen,  the  law  is  at  fault  and  not  the 
Constitution.  The  law,  as  it  stands,  I  do  not  understand  ex- 
cludes that  class  of  people  ;  for  I  believe,  since  the  law  of  1871, 
gentlemen  over  seventy  years  of  age,  as  well  as  under,  are  reck- 
oned as  polls.  The  amendment  restores  it  substantially,  as  I 
understand,  where  it  was  before  1S71.  If  gentlemen  will  par- 
don me  two  or  three  suggestions,  I  will  make  them  at  this  time. 
This,  you  see,  fixes  a  standard  which  is  reliable.  It  is  hard  to 
conceive  how  it  is  possible  for  any  wrong  to  be  done  to  any  one, 
or  any  "  cheating,"  as  the  term  is  sometimes  used,  in  any  direc- 
tion whatever.  It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  any  person, 
who  could  be  reckoned  a  ratable  poll,  could  be  fraudulently  rep- 
resented as  having  been  assessed  and  paid  his  taxes.  It  makes 
it  very  easy  for  the  selectmen,  for  they  have  only  to  turn  to  the 
collector's  list,  and  there  count  the  names  upon  that  list  who  have 
paid  taxes  ;  and  when  they  have  done  so  they  have  determined  the 
number  of  ratable  polls.  I  have  heard  several  gentlemen  speak 
of  using  the  check-list  in  the  place  of  what  I  here  suggest.  My 
objection  to  that  is  this, — that  the  check-list  varies,  and  there  is 
a  temptation  to  put  men's  names  on  the  check-list  when  they  do 
not  belong  there.  When  it  comes  very  close  to  making  up  an- 
other representative,  the  selectmen  may  have  a  temptation  to 
use  all  the  elasticity  that  the  case  will  admit  of,  and  might — 
if  two,  or  three,  or  four,  or  half  a  dozen,  only,  were  wanted — 
they  might,  perhaps,  stretch  their  consciences  a  little  to  meet 
that  particular  occasion.  But  this  entails  considerable  labor 
upon  those  men,  because  the  question  might  arise  in  regard  to 
the  testimony  that  might  be  necessary  in  order  to  determine  a 
man's  age,  or  whether  he  had  a  right  to  vote,  and  it  would  im- 
pose upon  the  selectmen  a  great  deal  of  labor.  Some  persons 
have  proposed  that  we  take  the  number  of  persons  who  voted 
at  the  last  election.     That,  I  think,  is  subject  to  the  objections 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I  3  I 

which  I  have  suggested,  and  to  the  further  objection,  that  you 
would  then  have  no  permanent  constituency  by  which  you 
would  be  guided.  The  vote  of  the  towns,  the  vote  of  the  state, 
varies  very  considerably  in  different  years.  I  think  there  has 
been  a  difference,  within  the  last  three  or  four  years,  of  10,000 
to  15,000  votes,  and  it  would  make  a  very  considerable  differ- 
ence in  that  respect.  Others  have  proposed  that  this  be  based 
upon  population  ;  but  I  submit  that  that  would  be  variable. 
Then  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  in  regard  to  our  popula- 
tion, excepting  by  the  census  taken  by  the  United  States,  which 
occurs  only  once  in  ten  years.  We  might  provide,  it  is  true,  for 
a  census  to  be  taken  oftener — a  state  census  ;  but  that  would 
be  attended  with  considerable  expense,  and  our  people  are 
rightly  sensitive  in  regard  to  unnecessary  expense.  It  seems  to 
me,  on  considering  the  whole  question,  that  here  you  have  a 
thing  which  is  permanent,  easy  to  be  ascertained,  and  which  is 
certain  ;  which  relieves  the  selectmen  from  a  great  deal  of  labor, 
and  from  all  possible  uncertainty  and  fraud.  I  hope  this  prop- 
osition may  meet  the  approbation  of  the  gentlemen  of  this  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Sanborn  of  Franklin.  I  desire  to  inquire  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Dover,  through  you,  sir,  what  reduction  that  would 
probably  make  in  the  number  of  members  of  the  house. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I  can  only  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  the  gentle- 
man, that  he  can  judge  as  well  as  I.  I  have  made  no  figures 
upon  it.  I  can  answer,  perhaps,  so  far  as  this, — it  will  certainly 
reduce  the  house  to  a  standard  somewhat  below  what  it  was 
before  1S71.  It  must  reduce  it  certainly  to  that.  I  have  not 
had  the  data  on  which  to  base  any  calculation,  and  have  left 
that,  as  I  understand  other  gentlemen  have  been  making  figures 
in  that  direction, — how  far  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord  introduced  the  following  :   t 

Amend  Article  9  by  striking  out  all  after  the  word  "privileges" 
in  the  fifth  line,  and  inserting  the  following:  "having  Soo  in- 
habitants, may  elect  one  representative  ;  if  2000  inhabitants, 
may  elect  two  representatives  ;  if  3500  inhabitants,  may  elect 
three  representatives  ;  if  5000  inhabitants,  may  elect  four  rep- 


132  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

resentatives  ;  and  so  proceeding,  making  1500  inhabitants  the 
mean  increasing  number  for  every  additional  representative; — 
the  number  of  inhabitants  in  each  case  to  be  the  number  shown 
by  the  last  preceding  official  census,  taken  under  the  authority 
of  the  United  States  ;  and  no  town  shall  be  so  divided,  or  city 
warded,  as  to  change  the  above  rates  of  representation." 

Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter.  I  would  like  to  inquire  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Concord  whether  the  effect  of  the  amendment  would 
be  to  require  the  cities  to  elect  by  general  ticket,  it  being  pro- 
vided that  no  cities  should  be  so  re-warded  as  to  increase  the 
number. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  I  should  think  not.  This  refers  simply  to 
future  changes  in  the  ward  lines. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Portsmouth.  I  would  like  to  inquire  further 
of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  if  his  idea  was  carried  out, 
how  each  ward  in  a  city  would  know  what  their  proportional 
part  of  the  representation  from  that  city  would  be — how  we 
are  to  understand  how  to  divide  oft'  the  city  into  wards. 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  I  do  not  understand  that  the  gen- 
tleman's amendment  can  take  precedence  of  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Dover.  I  do  not  understand  that  he  made 
it  in  that  way  ;  it  will  come  up  in  its  proper  order.  The  prop- 
osition of  the  gentleman  from  Dover  is  under  consideration. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  That  was  my  purpose — simply  to  get  it 
before  the  committee  for  action. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester.  I  have  a  similar  proposition, 
which  I  would  like  to  hand  in  and  have  read,  to  take  its  usual 
course.  I  am  not  particular  as  to  its  being  considered  at  the 
present  time. 

The  Chairman.  The  proposition  will  be  considered  by 
unanimous  consent. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Gilmore  introduced  the  following  : 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  "  privileges,"  in  the  fifth  line  of 
/the  9th  Article,  and  insert  the  following  :  "  casting  150  votes  for 
governor  may  elect  one  representative,  and  casting  450  votes 
for  governor  may  elect  two  representatives,  and  so  on,  making 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  I  33 

300  votes  for  governor  the  mean  increasing  number  for  every 
additional  representative  ;  and  the  number  of  votes  cast  for  gov- 
ernor the  previous  election  in  any  town  shall  be  the  basis  for 
determining  the  number  of  representatives  for.  that  town  ;  and 
provided  further,  that  any  town  not  casting  150  votes  for  gov- 
ernor, but  casting  60,  ma)-,  on  consent  of  the  legislature,  elect 
one  representative. 

Mr.  Y\  heeler  of  Dover.  I  would  like  to  inquire  if  this  com- 
mittee have  not  already  voted  that,  in  reducing  the  house,  they 
would  do  it  by  defining  a  ratable  poll? 

The  Chairman.  Such  is  not  the  impression  of  the  chair. 
The  record  of  the  convention  will  undoubtedly  show. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  As  we  are  upon  these  matters,  I 
would  ask  leave,  by  general  consent,  to  introduce  a  resolution — 
which  I  do  at  the  request  of  several  members,  and  which  I  now 
send  to  the  chair — to  wit : 

Resolved,  That  the  state  be  divided  into  100  representative 
districts,  to  be  formed  so  as  to  contain,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  an 
equal  number  of  inhabitants,  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  conform 
to  the  existing  county,  town,  and  ward  lines,  so  far  as  may  be, 
and  that  each  of  said  districts  shall  be  entitled  to  send  two  rep- 
resentatives to  the  general  court.  The  legislature  may  from 
time  to  time  change  those  districts,  so  as  to  make  them  con- 
form as  nearly  as  may  be  to  the  foregoing  conditions  ;  but  in 
no  case  shall  any  change  be  made  in  said  districts  oftener  than 
once  in  ten  years. 

Mr.  Sargent.  I  believe,  if  such  a  system  can  be  adopted,  it 
is  the  best,  most  feasible,  and  the  most  just  of  any  system  that 
it  is  possible  to  adopt.  I  suggested  that  perhaps  the  state 
might  be  divided,  so  that  each  district  might  send  one  senator 
and  a  certain  number  of  representatives  ;  but,  on  reflection,  it 
might  be  found  that,  when  these  districts  were  made,  it  would 
almost  inevitably  result  in  having  the  senate  and  the  house  of 
the  same  complexion  politically,  because  if  one  party  carried 
the  senator,  they  would  be  likely  to  cany  the  representa- 
tives in  the  same  district.  I  think,  upon  the  whole,  it  would 
be  more  just  to   have  the  senatorial  districts  either  remain  as 


134  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

they  are,  or  to  have  them  districted  for  the  election  of  senators 
alone,  and  have  representative  districts  by  themselves.  I  there- 
fore introduce  this  resolution. 

Mr.  Wentworth  of  Concord  introduced  the  following: 

Strike  out  in  the  9th  Article,  after  the  words  "  entitled  to 
town  privileges,"  the  words  "  one  hundred  and  fifty  ratable 
male  polls,  of  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  upwards,"  and  in- 
sert the  words  "  one  hundred  and  sixty  legal  voters." 

Also,  strike  out  in  the  same  article  the  words  "  four  hundred 
and  fifty  ratable  polls,"  and  insert  the  words  "  six  hundred  legal 
voters." 

Also,  insert  in  the  same  article,  after  the  words  "  two  repre- 
sentatives," the  words  "  if  eleven  hundred  legal  voters  may 
elect  three  representatives." 

Also,  strike  out  in  the  same  article  the  words,  "  making  three 
hundred  ratable  polls,"  and  insert  the  words  "  making  five  hun- 
dred legal  voters" — 

So  that,  as  amended,  it  would  read,  "  having  one  hundred  and 
sixty  legal  voters  may  elect  one  representative,  if  six  hundred 
legal  voters  may  elect  two  representatives,  if  eleven  hundred 
legal  voters  may  elect  three  representatives,  and  so  on  in  that 
proportion,  making  five  hundred  legal  voters  the  mean  increas- 
ing number  for  every  additional  representative." 

Mr.  Wentworth.  One  word.  This  proposition  preserves 
the  rights  of  the  smaller  towns  and  town  representation, — 
towns  that  will  not  as  a  rule  grow  larger,  but  will  fall  off  in 
number,  and  have  to  be  classed  ;  and  it  does  not  conflict  with 
the  larger  towns,  only  so  far  as  it  asks  them  to  yield  something 
by  way  of  representation  to  their  less  populous  neighbors,  in 
the  same  spirit  of  compromise  which  enabled  our  fathers  in  the 
federal  constitution  to  unite  the  larger  and  smaller  states,  by 
giving  each  state  two  senators ;  and  the  same  spirit  is  also 
manifest  in  making  up  the  electoral  college.  If  this  or  any 
other  article  of  our  Constitution  is  ever  changed,  the  people 
must  be  satisfied  that  there  is  no  selfish  motive  concealed  in  the 
amendment,  and  that  it  has  for  its  object  the  greatest  possible 
good  of  all  our  people, — for  they  hold  that  dear  old  instrument, 
as  well  as  the  Bill  of  Rights,  as  a  precious  legacy,  full  of  wisdom 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  I  35 

and  truth,  handed  down  to  them  hy  their  revolutionary  fathers  ; 
and  they  will  be  slow  to  part  with  a  single  word  of  it.  only  so 
far  as  the  growth  of  our  state  demands  it.  This  change  will 
cover  the  demand  needed,  and  will  do  away  with  the  work  of 
hunting  up  ratable  polls.  The  proposed  amendment  will,  strik- 
ing out  all  special  legislation,  reduce  the  house  about  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty-five.  This,  with  biennial  sessions  and  an 
increase  of  the  senate,  would  meet  the  wants  of  many  who 
voted  to  call  this  convention.  The  reduction  would  be  no  more 
than  demanded,  its  advantages  universal,  and  its  disadvantages, 
if  any,  would  soon  be  forgotten  in  the  harmony  and  prosperity 
of  the  whole  body  politic. 

Mr.  Piper  of  Dublin  introduced  the  following : 

Resolved,  That  the  9th  Article  of  Part  Second  be  so  amended 
that  every  town,  city,  parish,  or  place,  entitled  to  town  privi- 
leges, having  one  hundred  and  fifty  male  polls  of  twenty-one 
years  of  age  and  upwards,  may  elect  one  representative  ;  if  six 
hundred  ratable  polls,  may  elect  two  representatives  ;  and  so 
proceeding  in  that  proportion,  making  five  hundred  such  rata- 
ble poHs  the  mean  increasing  number  for  every  additional  rep- 
resentative. 

The  third  proposition  of  Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough  being 
before  the  committee,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner  it 
was  laid  aside  for  the  present — a  division  being  called  for  on 
that  question  by  Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover. 

Whereupon  182  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative  and  20  in 
the  negative,  and  the  affirmative  prevailed,  and  the  third  prop- 
osition was  laid  aside. 

The  fourth  proposition  of  Mr.  Scott  being  before  the  com- 
mittee, was  laid  aside  for  the  present,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Gallin- 
ger  of  Concord. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner,  the  committee  pro- 
ceeded to  the  consideration  of  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Hastings 
of  Monroe  ;  and  that  proposition  being  before  the  committee, 
on  motion  of  Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth  the  proposition  was 
laid  aside  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Hastings.     When  I  submitted  that  proposition,  I  did  not 


I36  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

intend — in  making  the  remark  that  the  delegations  from  the  large 
towns,  or  of  those  that  had  two  representatives  or  more — that 
their  delegations  should  be  divided  by  two.  What  I  intended 
to  say  was,  that  all  small  towns  that  are  now  entitled  to  a  rep- 
resentative, should  have  that  representation  still ;  and  all  those 
that  "were  entitled  to  two  or  more  should  be  fixed  in  some  way, 
say  450  for  one,  and  that  an  increase  of  500  ratable  polls  entitled 
them  to  two,  and  so  on.  I  find  by  this  calculation  that  it  would 
reduce  the  house  of  representatives  about  the  same  as  it  would 
by  taking  the  course  I  suggested — reducing  all  those  one  half 
that  then  had  two  or  over  two.  That  was  my  idea  ;  and  this 
proposition  of  450,  with  an  increase  of  500  and  so  on,  would 
about  accomplish  what  I  have  suggested.  My  idea  is,  that  we 
do  not,  in  the  first  place,  expect  to  submit  a  proposition  that 
will  be  perfect  in  every  respect ;  that  will  do  perfect  justice  to 
every  section  of  the  state  ;  nor  that  will  give  perfect  satisfaction 
to  the  voters  of  every  section  of  the  state  ; — but  I  want  to  come 
as  near  to  it  as  I  can.  I  want  to  submit  something  that  will  be 
satisfactory  to  the  people.  According  to  this  proposition,  there 
are  about  160  odd  towns  that  now  are  entitled  to  one  represent- 
ative. This  proposition  will  give  every  town,  with  town  priv- 
ileges, a  representative  in  the  legislature,  selected  by  themselves 
and  within  themselves,  so  that  there  will  be  no  one  town  left 
out  in  the  cold.  Therefore  I  take  it  for  granted  that  the  mem- 
bers here  from  those  160  odd  towns  will  be  in  favor  of  that 
proposition  most  unanimously.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  their 
constituents  will  also  be  nearly  unanimous  for  that  proposition. 
It  cannot  be  otherwise,  because  they  would  all  be  represented, 
and  their  interests  will  be  looked  to,  one  and  all.  Then,  as 
regards  the  smaller  towns,  those  that  now  have  two  represent- 
atives— such  as  Plymouth,  Lisbon,  and  so  on — I  think  that 
their  interests  would  be  looked  to  as  well  by  one  representative 
as  by  two  ;  and  therefore  I  think  that  they  might  be  satisfied 
with  the  proposition,  for  the  reason  that  they  would  be  repre- 
sented and  their  interests  would  be  as  well  looked  after.  The 
city  of  Manchester,  instead  of  having  thirty  representatives, 
would  have  fifteen  :  and  so  in  all  the  large  towns.  They  are 
so  situated  as  to  have  men  of  talent  and  experience,  who  would 
be  heard  in  the  legislature.    I  think  Manchester's  interests  would 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I  37 

be  looked  after  just  as  well  by  fifteen  members  as  they  would  by 
thirty,  and  therefore  they  would  be  well  represented,  and  it 
seems  as  though  they  would  be  satisfied.  If  it  is  possible,  in  such 
a  place  a^  Manchester,  Concord,  or  Nashua,  they  might  have  an 
axe  to  grind,  it  would  take  more  muscle  to  turn  that  thirty  than 
fifteen  ;  but  I  take  it  for  granted  they  would  have  no  such  thing 
in  their  minds,  and  therefore  I  think  this  proposition,  on  the 
whole,  would  be  more  satisfactory  to  the  voters  of  this  state 
than  any  other  proposition,  and  I  hope  it  will  be  adopted. 

The  proposition  of  Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill  being  before  the 
committee,  was  laid  aside  for  the  present  on  motion  of  Mr. 
Page  of  Haverhill. 

The  proposition  of  Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth  being  before 
the  committee — 

Mr.  Burrows.  I  will  only  say  just  a  word.  It  seems  to  me 
that  this  will  do  away  with  all  this  talk  about  "  ratable  polls." 
There  will  be  no  danger,  as  the  gentleman  from  Dover  [Mr. 
Wheeler]  suggested,  that  the  selectmen  will  stretch  their  con- 
sciences a  little,  because  they  have  to  establish  the  number  of 
legal  voters.  Therefore  I  do  not  think  that  the  objection  which 
the  gentleman  from  Dover  has  mentioned  is  at  all  applicable  to 
this  amendment ;  and  it  seems  to  me  to  be  as  fair  an  amend- 
ment as  we  can  have,  and  does  away  with  the  trouble  of  defining 
the  ratable  polls.     I  think  the  proposition  ought  to  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport.  I  understand  the  proposition  to  be 
based  on  "  legal  voters."  I  desire  to  get  all  the  information  that 
I  can  before  I  act.  I  have  been  listening  here  very  attentively 
to  all  the  propositions  that  have  been  made,  and  we  have  come 
now — as  I  understand  the  proposition — upon  legal  voters.  Well, 
now,  I  really  do  not  sec  that  there  is  any  proposition — there  is 
none  to  my  own  mind — that  is  fairer  than  this.  It  does  away 
with  a  great  deal  of  trouble  we  should  have  to  go  through  with 
if  we  based  it  on  ratable  polls.  Now  I  will  say,  as  we  some- 
times say  in  trials,  "for  the  purpose  of  this  trial  we  will  rule  so 
and  so,"  and,  for  the  purposes  of  this  debate  to-night,  I  will 
plant  myself  on  the  legal  voter.  I  do  not  say  whether  it  is  to 
be  150  or  100,  but  I  will  say  "  the  legal  voter,"  because  I  can  see 
that  it  does  do  away  with  a  great  deal  of  machinery  that  some  of 


138  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

these  other  propositions  involve,  and  I  do  not  now  see  any  un- 
fairness in  it.  If  I  happen  to  see  any  when  I  get  more  light, 
it  will  be  different.  What  we  are  seeking  for  is  "  more  light." 
And  if,  after  receiving  more  light,  serious  objections  appear,  I 
will  not  bind  myself  to  stick  to  this  proposition  one  minute  ;  but 
I  have  been,  so  far,  only  educated  up  to  this  point.  I  take  this 
ground,  that  the  best  proposition  that  has  yet  been  presented  is 
that  which  bases  representation  on  the  legal  voter ;  and  so  I 
stand  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Jackson  of  Manchester.  I  have  listened  to  all  the  prop- 
ositions which  have  been  submitted.  I  represent  a  section  of 
the  state  where  ratable  polls  are  as  abundant  as  in  any  other 
section  of  the  state.  We  can  make  as  many  representatives  out 
of  ratable  polls  in  the  ward  where  I  live  as  anywhere  else  in  the 
state  ;  yet  I  coincide  with  the  gentlemen  from  Newport.  I 
believe  it  is  a  clear,  distinct  proposition,  that  everybody  can 
understand.  When  we  have  made  our  check-lists,  we  know 
how  many  representatives  we  can  send.  We  shall  be  under  no 
necessity  of  getting  1500  names  to  secure  three  or  four  more 
representatives.  I  believe  that  it  is  the  desire  of  this  convention 
to  reduce  the  size  of  the  house  ;  and  that  is  one  of  the  main 
purposes  for  which  we  are  sent  here  at  this  time.  But  I  am 
clear  in  my  own  mind,  if  this  convention  is  not  willing  to  make 
the  basis  of  representation  on  the  legal  voters,  you  will  never 
reduce  the  house  in  the  least ;  because,  taking  the  basis  of  legal 
voters,  you  reduce  it  some  forty  or  fifty  members  and  wrong  no- 
body. You  have  a  class  of  representation  here  purporting 
to  represent  "  ratable  polls,"  but  they  are  just  as  likely  to  mis- 
represent them  as  not.  If  we  have  our  representation  on  the 
legal  voters,  that  is  enough  ;  we  ask  for  no  more  ; — and  I  think 
the  large  cities  will  coincide  with  this  view  in  their  desire  to 
reduce  the  number  of  members  of  the  house. 

Mr.  Slay  ton  of  Manchester.  The  question  is  clear  to  some, 
but  not  so  clear  to  others.  As  for  myself,  I  don't  know  what 
a  ratable  poll  is  ;  and  as  for  myself,  I  don't  know  what  a  legal 
voter  is.  I  do  not  know  how  you  are  going  to  get  at  the  num- 
ber of  legal  voters,  especially  in  our  city.  I  think  you  would 
have  the  same  difficulty  in  taking  the  legal  voters  as  the  ratable 
polls. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I  39 

Mr.  Sanborn  of  Franklin.  I  propose  to  base  my  action,  as 
the  gentleman  from  Newport  has  suggested,  upon  the  light  we 
have  up  to  this  time.  I  desire  to  know  how  much  this  basis 
will  reduce  the  house.  The  point  that  we  are  to  make  is,  to  find 
some  just  and  equitable  way  of  making  some  reduction  in  the 
representation.  The  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Ply- 
mouth is,  to  make  the  basis  of  representation  upon  the  voter 
and  not  upon  the  ratable  poll.  I  desire  to  know  how  that  will 
affect  the  number  of  representatives  ;  and  if  there  is  anything  I 
intend  to  vote  for — and  I  know  what  I  am  voting  for — it  is  for 
a  reduction  of  the  house. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  suppose  that  will  depend  entirely 
upon  the  ratio  of  the  representation.  It  is  simply  a  question 
whether  it  shall  be  based  upon  the  ratable  polls,  or  upon  the 
voters  ;  and  the  whole  reduction  will  finally  depend  upon  the 
ratio  you  may  adopt. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport.  I  desire  that  the  committee  shall 
understand  the  proposition.  The  question  was  raised  by  the 
gentleman  from  Franklin  as  to  how  the  house  shall  be  reduced. 
This  proposition  is  only  to  fix  a  basis, — that  is  all — simply  to  fix 
a  basis  of  action.     This  proposition  is  nothing  more  than  that. 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth.  The  idea  is,  to  fix  upon  some- 
thing that  you  can  reckon  upon  as  sure.  My  friend  from  Man- 
chester [Mr.  Slayton]  says  that  he  does  not  know  what  the 
ratable  polls  are.  If  that  is  so,  I  do  not  think  that  the  gentle- 
man has  employed  his  time  very  well  if  he  don't  know.  We 
need  but  to  fix  the  basis.  The  selectmen  hold  two  sessions  be- 
fore the  town-meeting, — one  some  days  previous,  and  the  other 
on  the  day  of  the  town-meeting — an  open  session,  in  which  every 
inhabitant  of  the  town  has  the  right  to  be  present. 

Mr.  Sanborn.  I  think  I  now  understand  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Plymouth. 

Mr.  Mason  of  Moultonborough.  The  people  that  I  represent 
all  say  "  Reduce  the  house."  That  is  the  first  thing  that  seems 
uppermost  in  their  minds.  But  still,  when  we  ask  them  how 
that  is  to  be  done,  they  are  as  much  perplexed  as  we,  and  it  will 
be  a  very  difficult  point  for  this  committee  to  decide  upon — the 


14°  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

method  that  will  be  satisfactory  to  every  section,  to  every  part 
of  the  state.  I  think  that  it  is  of  the  utmost  consequence  that 
we  settle  this  point  right  here, — that  is,  what  shall  be  the  basis 
of  representation, — before  we  go  any  further.  I  introduced,  at 
the  very  first  stages  of  this  convention,  a  resolution  defining  a 
ratable  poll,  and  also  a  voter  ;  but  still,  I  will  be  satisfied  with 
the  proposition  that  was  read  to  the  committee  by  Mr.  Wheeler 
of  Dover.  I  think  that  there  can  be  nothing  fairer  than  to  take 
the  legal  voter  as  the  basis.  As  I  said  when  I  put  in  my  prop- 
osition that  afternoon,  a  ratable  poll  should  be  one  who  had 
paid  his  tax  the  year  previous — unless  he  was  over  seventy  years 
of  age,  or  had  become  a  new  resident  subsequently,  having  lived 
six  months  in  the  town.  That  defines  not  only  the  ratable  polls, 
but  the  voters.  The  trouble  with  us  lias  been  that  we  have  young 
men  come  into  town  who  go  away  into  other  states.  They  come 
there  and  vote  appropriations  for  us  to  pay,  and  then  immediate- 
\y  leave  town  and  pay  no  taxes.  I  am  fully  in  agreement  with 
the  proposition  before  this  committee,  that  we  make  the  basis 
of  representation  the  legal  voter,  and  after  that  I  cannot  say 
particularly  as  to  the  ratio, — but  reduce  the  house  to  a  certain 
extent ;  and  I  think  there  is  no  fairer  way  than  by  the  legal  voter. 

Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter.  It  is  very  apparent  that  the  committee 
are  now  working  entirely  in  the  dark  ;  that  the  very  question 
which  we  want  to  know  about  is,  what  the  effect  of  the  several 
propositions  now  before  the  committee  will  be.  In  order  that 
there  may  be  wise  judgment  upon  that  matter,  we  need  the  in- 
formation that  the  convention  has  ordered  of  the  secretary  of 
state.  It  seems  to  me  desirable  that  we  should  not  attempt  to 
determine  the  basis  of  representation  until  we  have  that  com- 
munication ;  and  I  therefore  move  that  the  9th,  10th,  and  nth 
articles  be  passed  over  for  the  present,  and  that  we  proceed 
with  the  1 2th,  in  order  that  we  may  proceed  more  intelligently 
in  reference  to  those  articles  in  the  morning. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester.  I  desire  to  say  a  few  words.  I 
went  over  this  very  carefully  to  see  where  the  amendment  would 
affect  sections,  in  case  of  a  reduction  of  the  house  on  the  basis  of 
the  actual  votes  cast  last  spring.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that 
I  am  for  a  reduction  of  the  house  ;  but  provided  this  convention 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  141 

sees  fit  to  vote  for  a  reduction,  I  will  give  them  my  conclusions 
on  the  actual  votes  cast  last  spring.  I  should  say  right  here,  that 
a  ratable  poll  is  one  thing  to-day,  and  another  thing  to-morrow. 
I  hope  that  this  convention  will  fix  this  so  that  in  all  future  time 
we  may  know  what  the  representation  will  be,  and  determine 
the  basis.  I  went  over  every  town,  and  I  will  here  give  you 
something  of  a  recapitulation.  Last  year  I  make  3S4  represent- 
atives. In  Rockingham  county,  this  last  year,  there  were  59 
representatives  ;  as  proposed,  47.  Strafford,  37  ;  as  proposed, 
26.  Belknap,  iS  ;  as  proposed,  16.  Carroll,  23  ;  as  proposed, 
14.  Merrimack,  51;  as  proposed,  46.  Hillsborough,  75;  as 
proposed  5S.  For  the  representation  of  Manchester,  13  less  rep- 
resentatives ;  a  reduction  from  30  to  17.  Cheshire  county  now 
has32  representatives;  reduced  to  28.  Sullivan,  22;  as  proposed, 
iS.  Grafton,  47;  as  proposed,  40.  Coos,  21  ;  as  proposed,  19. 
Making  384,  and  as  proposed,  314 — a  reduction  of  70  represent- 
atives. By  my  calculation  there  would  be,  by  this  reduction, 
314  representatives  another  year.  Mr.  Burrows's  resolution  be- 
ing similar  to  mine,  I  perhaps  like  it  fully  as  well,  and  there- 
fore I  cheerfully  support  it. 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth.  I  move  that  the  legal  voters  be 
the  basis  of  the  reduction  of  the  house. 

Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter.  My  motion  was,  that  we  lay  aside  sec- 
tions 9,  10,  and  11,  and  commence  with  12  and  proceed  from 
there. 

Mr.  Burrows.  I  hope  that  motion  will  not  prevail  until  the 
basis  of  representation  is  fixed  upon.  I  think  that  the  com- 
mittee is  just  as  well  aide  to  fix  upon  the  basis  of  representation 
now  as  at  any  other  time,  and  I  hope  that  the  motion  will  not 
prevail. 

Mr.  Fisher  of  Walpole.  I  will  say,  generally,  that  I  went  to 
the  printing  oftke  and  found  that  we  cannot  get  those  tables 
until  to-morrow  morning.  I  have  Cheshire  and  Sullivan  coun- 
ties fully,  also  their  ratable  polls.  I  have  the  difference  between 
the  ratable  polls  and  legal  voters  in  those  two  counties;  also 
the  polls  taxed  ;  also  the  votes  for  governor.  If  those  will  be 
of  any  use  to  the  committee,  I  will  read  them. 


142  JOURNAL   OF  THE 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill.  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion. 
Let  us  have  that  report.  We  must  have  that  report  that  has 
been  ordered  before  we  can  act  intelligently  upon  this  subject. 
I  hope,  sir,  that  this  motion  will  not  be  pressed.  It  will  com- 
pel a  statement  to  be  made  by  individuals  who  are  in  no  condi- 
tion to  make  a  statement  without  that  report  of  the  actual 
facts. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  fair  to 
press  upon  this  committee  to-night  that  they  shall  fix  the  stan- 
dard that  we  are  to  adopt. 

Mr.  Burrows.  I  hope,  upon  further  reflection,  that  the  mo- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Exeter  will  prevail. 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Exeter  prevailed,  and  the  9th,  10th,  and  nth  arti- 
cles were  laid  aside  for  the  present. 

And  the  committee  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  fol- 
lowing articles :  ' 

Whereupon,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Spring  of  Lebanon,  the  fol- 
lowing amendment  was  adopted  : 

To  Article  12.  By  striking  out  the  word  "annually,"  and 
inserting  the  word  "  biennially." 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Quarles  of  Ossipee,  the  following  amend- 
ment was  adopted  : 

To  Article  12.  By  striking  out  the  word  "March,"  and  in- 
serting the  word  "  November." 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord,  the  following  amend- 
ment was  adopted  : 

To  Article  14.  By  striking  out  the  words  "shall  be  of  the 
Protestant  religion." 

Mr.  Robinson  of  Pittsfield  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

Resolved,  That  the  words  "  by  a  law  made  for  that  purpose," 
in  Article  15,  be  stricken  out,  and  the  following  inserted:  "by 
the  payment  of  the  sum  of  one  hundred  dollars,  and  mileage  to 
each  member  as  now  paid  :  Provided,  if  the  governor  shall  call 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  143 

an  extra  session  of  the  legislature,  each  member  shall  receive 
the  sum  of  three  dollars  per  day." 

Which  was  rejected  on  a  division  called  for  by  Mr.  Ordvvay 
of  Warner,  41  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  affirmative  and 
141  in  the  negative. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Smith  of  Peterborough,  the  following 
amendment  was  adopted: 

To  Article  16.  By  striking  out  the  word  "annually,"  and 
inserting  the  word  "biennially." 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester  moved  the  following  amendment : 

To  Article  24.  By  striking  out  the  word  "  one  "  in  the  fourth 
line,  and  inserting  the  word  "  ten." 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  unreasonable 
to  require,  that  when  the  yeas  and  nays  are  called  for  in  the 
senate,  it  should  be  necessary  to  have  ten  members  second  the 
motion,  because  that  would  be  almost  unanimous  in  the  senate. 
This  amendment,  I  understand,  refers  to  both  branches — the 
senate  and  the  house  ;  and  if  so,  I  am  in  favor  of  making  the 
rule  in  the  house,  that  it  should  be  on  a  motion  seconded  by  at 
least  ten  members  of  the  house  ;  but  in  the  senate,  it  seems  to 
me,  it  would  be  sufficient  to  have  two,  or  three,  or  perhaps  one. 
In  the  house,  I  think  it  is  a  very  proper  suggestion  that  the  yeas 
and  nays  should  not  be  called  unless  requested  by  a  certain  num- 
ber of  those  in  the  house.  With  this  amendment,  I  should  be 
in  favor  of  the  change. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill.  I  hope  this  motion  will  not  prevail. 
I  do  not  believe  that  the  right  of  any  member  of  any  district  to 
have  his  vote  on  record  should  be  stricken  from  the  Constitu- 
tion. It  is  a  matter  of  privilege,  of  individual  right,  of  members 
representing  constituents.  Again,  passing  by  that,  it  is  an 
amendment  that  would  never  receive  the  sanction  of  the  peo- 
ple ;  and  it  is  an  amendment,  like  many  others,  that  would  en- 
cumber and  hinder  all  our  proceedings. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester.  I  have  no  objection  to  amend 
the  motion  to  meet  the  wishes  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord  ; 
but  I  think  those  who  have  been  conversant  with  the  proceed- 


144  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

ings  here  in  Concord  for  the  past  few  years,  will  know  that  this 
very  matter  has  taken  up  more  time  than  anything  else  during 
the  whole  session  ;  and  I  think  that  no  one  thing  should  take 
up  the  time  of  the  session.  It  is  not  only  that,  but  it  covers  the 
journal,  I  think  three  or  four  hundred  pages, — not  only  an  ex- 
pense in  writing,  and  consuming  the  time,  but  also  in  printing. 
And,  in  compliance  with  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  I  will  move  that  ten  members  of  the  house,  and  one 
of  the  senate,  shall  be  required  to  second  any  motion  for  a  call 
of  the  yeas  and  nays  before  the  same  shall  be  entertained. 

Mr.  Bingham  of  Littleton.  As  I  understand,  sir,  the  propo- 
sition which  is  now  before  the  committee,  it  is  to  put  a  limita- 
tion or  incumbrance  on  the  mode  of  proceeding  in  our  two 
houses  of  the  legislature,  against  the  wise  provision  our  fathers 
put  in  the  Constitution.  I  do  not  understand,  from  the  gentle- 
man who  proposed  the  limitation,  what  the  particular  wrong  is 
which  it  is  to  remedy  ;  nor  do  I  understand  from  him,  if  there 
be  any  wrong,  how  it  is  that  the  amendment  which  he  proposes 
can  be  any  remedy.  I  cannot  see  how  it  is.  I  know  that  par- 
tisans in  this  house  have  been  guilty  at  times  of  what  is  termed 
"  fillibustering  " — that  is,  they  would  unnecessarily  call  for  the 
yeas  and  nays  for  the  purpose  of  delay.  Perhaps  the  delay 
was  unreasonable  or  unnecessary  ;  perhaps  the  delay  was  rea- 
sonable and  necessary  ;  but  I  will  say  this :  for  the  purpose  of 
delay,  members  on  the  one  side  and  on  the  other  have  called 
the  yeas  and  nays.  Well,  I  do  not  understand,  Mr.  Chairman, 
how  the  remedy  proposed  here  is  going  to  stop  that.  If  either 
party  in  this  house  make  up  their  minds  that  they  want  to 
block  the  business  by  calling  the  yeas  and  nays,  I  do  not  see 
why  it  is  not  just  as  easy  for  ten  of  them  to  come  together  and 
join  in  making  a  call  as  it  is  for  one,  and  I  cannot  see  how  this 
proposed  remedy  is  any  remedy  at  all ;  and  my  conviction  is, 
at  the  time,  that  this  article  in  our  Constitution  had  better  be  let 
alone — just  as  it  is — even  if  it  is  a  nuisance  to  have  the  yeas 
and  nays  called.  I  do  not  think  it  is,  for  there  are  occasions 
when  it  is  entirely  proper  to  have  the  names  of  individuals 
placed  upon  record,  and  the  way  they  have  voted  shown  upon 
the  journal ;  and  there  is  no  danger  in  the  custom  except  when 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  145 

one  party  or  the  other  decide  to  do  what  is  termed  "  fillibuster- 
ing  ;  "  and  when  they  desire  that,  they  can  do  it  just  as  well  after 
the  Constitution  is  amended  as  the  gentleman  from  Manchester 
proposes,  as  they  can  now.  I  cannot  see  any  good  to  come 
from  the  proposed  change. 

Mr.  Tilton  of  Derry.  It  strikes  me  that  this  is  one  of  those 
evils  that  must  be  borne  because  it  cannot  be  cured  ;  and  I 
think  that  the  effect  of  this  motion,  if  it  be  adopted,  would  be 
to  increase  the  delay  instead  of  lessening  it:  it  would  take  a 
little  longer  to  get  ten  men  to  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  than  it 
would  for  one.  The  more  legislation  we  have  on  this  subject, 
the  worse  we  would  be  off. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Farmington.  I  hope  the  amendment  will  be 
adopted,  for  this  reason,  for  instance,  that  there  may  be  in  the 
house  one  unwise  member — there  cannot  be  ten  like  him  ;  and 
therefore  I  say,  let  us  have  a  change  in  this  respect.  At  the 
same  time,  I  would  not  deprive  any  member  of  his  right  to 
have  his  name  placed  on  record.  I  think  that  ought  to  be  pre- 
served.    Let  us  not  make  any  change  that  would  do  that. 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was  re- 
jected. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter, 

Ordered,  That  the  committee  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask 
leave  to  sit  again. 

IN    CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Putnam,  chairman,  reported  that  the  committee  of  the 
whole  had  had  under  consideration  so  much  of  Part  Second  of 
the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  house  of  representatives,  with- 
out concluding,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord,  the  convention  ad- 
journed. 


10 


I46  JOURNAL   OF   THE 


WEDNESDAY,  December  13,  1S76. 

Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  president  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  chaplain. 

The  journal  was  read  and  approved. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord,  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  the  secretary  be  instructed  to  procure,  at  the 
close  of  this  convention,  fifteen  hundred  printed  copies,  in  pam- 
phlet form,  of  the  proceedings,  to  be  distributed  as  follows  un- 
der the  direction  of  the  secretary  of  state :  One  copy  to  each 
member  of  this  convention ;  one  copy  to  each  town,  to  be  kept 
in  the  office  of  the  town-clerk ;  one  copy  to  each  secretary  of 
state  of  other  states  and  territories,  to  be  placed  in  their  respec- 
tive state  libraries  ;  one  copy  to  each  public  institution  of  learn- 
ing in  our  state  ;  one  copy  to  each  public  library  in  our  state  ; 
five  copies  to  Dartmouth  college ;  five  copies  to  the  New 
Hampshire  Historical  Society  ;  ten  copies  to  the  New  Hamp- 
shire state  library  ;  and  the  balance  to  be  disposed  of  at  the 
discretion  of  the  secretary  of  state. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Kimball  of  Ward  5,  Concord,  the  follow- 
ing resolution  was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  on  finance,  consisting  of  three, 
be  appointed  by  the  chair. 

And  the  president  announced  the  finance  committee  as  fol- 
lows :  Kimball  of  Ward  5,  Concord,  Sturoc  of  Sunapee,  Hatch 
of  Keene. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua,  the  convention  re- 
solved itself  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  so  much  of  Part 
Second  of  the  Constitution  as  has  not  been  considered  by  the 
committee. 

IN    COMMITTEE    OF   THE   WHOLE. 

(Mr.  Sanborn  of  Franklin  in  the  chair.) 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  1 47 

Mr.  Berry  of  Windham  introduced  the  following  resolutions  : 

Whereas,  There  are  a  number  of  propositions  relative  to 
amendment  of  the  9th  Article — 

Resolved,  1st — That  the  committee  consider  the  propositions 
in  the  following  order,  to  wit:  1st.  The  second  proposition  of 
Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough.  2d.  The  proposition  of  Mr.  Page 
of  Haverhill.  3d.  The  third  proposition  of  Mr.  Scott  of 
Peterborough.  4th.  The  first  proposition  of  Mr.  Scott.  5th. 
The  fourth  proposition  of  Mr.  Scott. 

Resolved,  2d — That  all  propositions  shall  be  considered  in 
the  order  of  these  leading  propositions. 

Mr.  Fisher  of  Walpole.  In  deliberating  upon  the  several 
methods  you  will  pursue  in  reducing  this  house — for  I  under- 
stand, from  the  vote  taken,  that  we  have  concluded  that  it  is  for 
the  interest  of  the  people  that  the  house  shall  be  reduced — I 
would  like,  before  we  commence  figuring  on  the  tables 

Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter.  I  would  respectfully  suggest  that  dis- 
cussion upon  that  subject  would  not  be  germane  to  the  other 
subjects  now  before  the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  The  gentleman  from  Walpole  is  in  order, 
and  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Fisher.  I  was  about  to  say  that  it  was  necessary  for  us 
to  conclude,  before  we  commenced  figuring,  whether  we  should 
reduce  the  house  fifty,  or  one  hundred,  or  how  much  we  should 
reduce  it.  As  long  as  we  don't  know  whether  we  are  going  to 
reduce  it  fifty,  or  one  hundred,  I  shall  not  go  to  work  to  figure  it 
out ;  but  if  this  committee  can  tell  me  what  definite  conclusion 
they  have  come  to,  I  will  go  to  work  to  figure  it  out,  and  do 
something.  We  might  proceed  to  reduce  it,  on  one  theory  after 
another,  and  never  come  to  a  definite  conclusion.  I  therefore 
propose  to  offer  a  resolution 

The  Chairman.  At  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  the  gentle- 
man's resolution  is  out  of  order. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter,  the  various  propositions 
relating  to  the  house  of  representatives  were  laid  aside  for  the 
present,  and  the  committee  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  so 
much  of  the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  senate. 


1^8  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth  moved  to  amend  as  follows : 

By  striking  out  Articles  25  and  26,  and  inserting  the  follow- 
ing: "Article  25.  The  senate  shall  consist  of  thirty  members, 
who  shall  hold  their  offices  for  two  years  from  the  first 
Wednesday  of  June  next  following  their  election. 

"  Article  26.  Each  county  in  this  state,  as  now  located, 
bounded,  and  established,  shall  constitute  and  form  a  separate 
district — an  unchangeable  senatorial  district — in  each  of  which 
three  senators  shall  be  elected." 

Mr.  Burrows.  My  proposition  is,  that  the  senatorial  districts 
shall  be  fixed.  Within  the  last  few  years  they  have  been  great- 
ly gerrymandered.  In  1873  one  party  got  them  into  very  ill- 
looking  shape  ;  and  in  1874  the  other  party  did  the  same  thing. 
What  I  propose  to  do  is,  to  have  each  county  form  a  senatorial 
district,  and  that  each  district  may  send  three  senators.  I  know 
it  may  be  said  that  this  is  unfair  as  to  population,  and  all  that 
sort  of  thing.  But  it  is  on  the  same  principle  that  the  United 
States  senate  is  formed, — that  is,  the  state  of  New  Hampshire, 
being  a  small  state,  has  just  as  many  senators  in  congress  as  the 
state  of  New  York,  which  is  a  very  large  one  ;  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  it  will  take  out  of  the  way  of  the  legislature  the  very 
reason  that  has  caused  it  to  cut  up  the  districts  and  gerryman- 
der them,  as  has  been  done  for  the  last  three  or  four  years. 
Therefore  I  hope  my  proposition  will  succeed. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Bradford  introduced  the  following  amendments 
to  Article  25  : 

Strike  out  of  the  first  line  the  words  "  twelve  members,"  and 
insert  the  words  "  thirty  members." 

Also,  strike  out  the  words  "one  year"  in  the  second  line, 
and  insert  "  two  years  " — 

So  as  to  read,  "  The  senate  shall  consist  of  thirty  members, 
who  shall  hold  their  office  for  two  years  from  the  first  Wednes- 
day in  June  next  ensuing  their  election." 

Mr.  Wentworth  of  Sandwich,  by  request,  introduced  the  fol- 
lowing amendment : 

The  house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of  one  hundred 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  I49 

and  fifty-six  members, — to  wit,  thirteen  from  each  of  the  sena- 
torial districts, — the  same  to  be  equitably  apportioned  among 
the  towns  by  the  legislature  ;  and  no  person  shall  be  eligible  as 
a  member  of  said  house  who  does  not  mainly  support  himself 
and  his  family — if  he  have  one — by  means  of  his  own  muscu- 
lar labor.  And  the  senate  shall  consist  of  forty-eight  members, 
— to  wit,  four  members  from  each  of  the  senatorial  districts  ; 
and  said  members  maybe  professional  men  and  men  of  wealth, 
and  statute  law  may  determine  the  manner  of  their  election. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover  introduced  the  following  as  a  substi- 
tute for  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth : 

Add  to  the  26th  Article  the  words,  "  and  each  senatorial  dis- 
trict may  elect  two  senators." 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester  moved  to  amend  Article  25  by 
striking  out  the  word  "  twelve,"  and  inserting  the  word 
"  twenty-four." 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner  moved  to  amend  the  amendment 
by  striking  out  the  word  "  twenty-four,"  and  inserting  the 
word  "  thirty-six." 

Mr.  Ordway.  I  would  simply  say,  that  if  the  house  is 
reduced  one  hundred  members,  and  the  senate  is  increased  to 
thirty-six  members,  by  the  computation  that  I  make  it  would 
give  the  house  two  hundred  and  sixty-one  members. 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster.  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  making 
some  remarks  in  regard  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Warner.  I  hope  that  it  will  be  adopted.  The  house  as 
now  constituted  consists  of  a  large  number ;  and  the  same  rea- 
son for  reducing  the  house  applies  with  equal  force  in  favor  of 
having  the  senate  increased  to  a  respectable  number.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Exeter  [Mr.  Marston],  in  his  appeal  the  other 
day,  took  the  ground  that  there  was  greater  security  in  having 
a  large  number  in  the  house  ;  that  they  are  more  free  from 
any  control  by  any  improper  influences  in  the  legislative  busi- 
ness ; — and  that  will  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  senate.  As 
the  senate  is  now  constituted,  even  if  the  number  is  increased 
to  twenty-four,  its  number  woidd  be  entirely  disproportionate 
to  the   number  of  the  house.     It  would  not  correspond  at  all, 


150  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

considering  the  number  that  has  been  sent  by  nearly  all  the 
states  in  the  Union  to  their  higher  legislative  branch,  and  the 
number  of  senators  in  the  United  States  congress  compared 
with  the  house.  I  think  that  thirty-six  is  none  too  many  sena- 
tors. If  we  are  to  have  two  or  three  hundred  members  of  the 
house,  my  opinion  is  that  there  should  be  about  one  senator  to 
every  three  or  four  members  of  the  house  ; — and  why  not  ?  There 
is  ample  room  to  accommodate  as  many  senators  as  that ;  and 
if  there  is  more  security  by  having  a  large  number  in  the 
house,  I  say  does  it  not  apply  with  equal  or  even  greater  force 
to  an  increase  of  the  number  of  the  senate?  Who  does  not 
know  that  this  senate  of  twelve  men  has  stood  out  against  three 
hundred  and  fifty  members  of  the  house  of  representatives,  and 
held  the  legislature  in  check,  and  put  a  stop  to  it  entirely? 
Now,  the  gentleman  from  Exeter  [Mr.  Marston]  says  he  wants 
the  state  to  bring  in  the  young  men  from  the  cities  and  towns, 
and  elect  them  as  members  of  the  house  ;  that  they  will  make 
better  citizens.  Why  should  not  his  proposition  apply  with 
equal  force  to  the  senate?  His  argument  in  regard  to  the  house 
of  representatives  will  also  apply  to  the  senate.  To  say  the 
least,  let  us  have  a  respectable  number,  proportionate  some- 
what to  that  of  the  house. 

Mr.  Sawtell  of  Lyme.  I  like  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Manchester.  There  is  very  little  machinery  in 
it.  The  districts  are  all  well  enough,  probably,  at  present. 
We  can  go  right  along  fixing  the  senate  without  going  through 
any  long,  complicated  matters.  I  am  quite  of  the  opinion  that 
to  elect  two  senators  from  each  district  would  be  the  best  and 
wisest  manner  to  get  at  the  whole  matter. 

Mr.  M.  C.  Burleigh  of  Somersworth.  I  am  in  favor  of 
twenty-four,  and  for  this  reason  :  We  desire  to  reduce  the  house 
of  representatives,  because  there  are  too  many  here  to  be  ac- 
commodated. If  my  recollection  of  the  size  of  the  senate- 
chamber  is  right,  thirty-six  is  too  large  a  number  to  be  accom- 
modated in  that  chamber,  unless  we  rebuild  the  state  house.  I 
think  it  is  wiser  to  adapt  ourselves  to  the  seating  capacity  of 
the  place,  than  to  put  a  number  in  there  that  the  chamber  will 
not  accommodate. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION'.  I  5  I 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth.  I  hope  that  the  motion  to  in- 
crease the  senate  to  thirty-six  will  not  prevail.  It  seems  to 
me  that  in  the  proposition  of  thirty  there  is  more  justice.  The 
effect  of  it  will  be,  to  give  each  party  its  right,  and  not  infringe 
upon  any  of  them  ;  and  I  hope  that  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman who  moved  that  the  number  be  fixed  at  thirty-six  will 
not  prevail. 

Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord.     I  desire  to  say  a  single  word  in 
favor  of  the  proposition  before  the  committee.     It  occurs  to 
me  that  thirty-six  members  of  the  senate  is  not  out  of  propor- 
tion to  the  number  that  the  house  will  probably  contain  after 
we  have  reduced  it,  as  I  presume  we  shall.    For  the  considera- 
tion of  the  committee,  I  will  call  its  attention  to  other  legisla- 
tive bodies  in  other  states,  and   the  relative  proportion  of  the 
senate  and  house  of  representatives  in  this  state,  showing  the 
fact  that  if  we  increase  out  senate  to  thirty-six,  and  reduce  our 
house  even  one  hundred  or  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  mem- 
bers, we  shall  still  have,  relatively,  a  smaller  senate  than  almost 
any  other  state  in  the  Union.     I  find  that  in  Alabama  the  senate 
consists  of  33  members,  and  the  house   of  representatives   of 
100  members ;   Arkansas — senate   22,  house   So  ;   California — 
senate  40,  house  So  ;  Connecticut — senate  21,  house  238  ;  Dela- 
ware— senate    9,    house     21;    Florida — senate    26,    house    52; 
Georgia — senate  4*4,  house  175  ;  Illinois — senate  35,  house  85  ; 
Indiana — senate   50,  house   no;  Iowa — senate   50,  house  100  ; 
Kansas — senate  25,  house  S7  ;  Kentucky — senate  3S,  house  100  ; 
Louisana — senate  3S,  house  101  ;  Maine — senate  31,  house  151  ; 
Maryland — senate    22,    house    74  ;    Massachusetts — senate    40, 
house  240  ;  Michigan — senate  32,  house  100  ;  Minnesota — sen- 
ate 22,  house  47  ;  Mississippi — senate  33,  house  107  ;  Missouri 
— senate    34,    house     127;    Nebraska — senate     13,    house    39; 
Nevada — senate  20,  house  39;    New   Hampshire — senate  12, 
house  390;  New  Jersey — senate  21,  house  60;    New  York — 
senate  32,  house   12S;  North  Carolina — senate  50,  house  120; 
Ohio — senate  37,  house   105  ;    Oregon — senate  22,  house  47  ; 
Pennsylvania — senate  32,  house  100  ;  Rhode  Island — senate  33, 
house  72  ;  South  Carolina — senate  31,  house  124;  Tennessee — 
senate  25,  house  S3;  Texas — senate  30,  house  90  ;  Vermont — 
senate  30,  house  235  ;  Virginia — senate  43,  house   137 ;  West 


I52  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

Virginia — senate  22,  house  56  ;  Wisconsin — senate  35,  house 
100. 

Now,  for  any  reduction  that  we  can  reasonably  expect  to 
make,  and  have  it  ratified  by  the  people,  I  submit  that  thirty- 
six  senators  will  be  proportionately  small  to  offset  so  large  a 
house  as  will  be  constituted  after  a  reasonable  reduction  is 
made  ;  and  for  that  reason  I  cheerfully  support  the  motion  be- 
fore the  committee  to  have  thirty-six  fixed  upon  as  the  number 
that  shall  constitute  the  senate. 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth.  If  it  is  designed  to  have  a  larger 
senate,  my  aim  is  simply  to  so  fix  the  districts  as  that  there  will 
be  no  gerrymandering.  I  hope  that  we  may  fix  upon  the  num- 
ber of  the  senate,  and  then  have  the  districts  so  fixed  that  they 
cannot  be  gerrymandered — that  is,  in  case  the  politics  of  the 
state  should  change. 

Mr.  Sawtell  of  Lyme.  I  am  in  favor  of  reducing  the  house 
to  one  hundred  and  fifty  members,  because  my  constituents  are 
in  favor  of  it,  and  I  believe  that  the  citizens  of  New  Hampshire 
all  favor  it,  as  well  as  their  representatives.  If  there  are  one 
hundred  and  fifty  members  in  the  house,  twenty-four,  I  think, 
would  be  enough  to  have  in  the  senate.  Why  do  we  need  thirty- 
six? 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport.  I  think  that  there  is  great  force  in 
the  proposition  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Lancaster  [Mr. 
Benton],  and  I  am  in  favor  it — and  also  in  the  remarks  of  the 
gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr.  Gallinger].  The  argument  of 
the  gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  as  I  understand  it,  is 
to  this  effect,  that  having  a  large  house  we  ought  to  have  a 
small  senate,— because  our  house  is  larger,  I  think,  than  any 
other  state  ;  and  that  we  ought  to  have  a  senate  of  at  least  thirty- 
six—or,  that  twenty-four  may  be  preferable  ;  but  I  do  not  under- 
stand that  in  the  proposition  he  includes  how  they  shall  be 
chosen,  but  simply  as  to  whether  we  shall  fix  it  at  twenty-four 
or  thirty-six.  To  my  own  mind,  it  is  obvious  that  a  senate  of 
thirty-six  members  is  small  enough.  But  I  desire  to  say  to  any- 
body who  thinks  that  this  house  is  going  to  be  cut  clown  to  one 
hundred  and  fifty  members,  that  he  is  mistaken.  It  is  never 
going  to  be  cut  down  that  much.   If  it  were  cut  down  to  seventy- 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I  53 

five  members,  I  should  be  satisfied.  But  I  can  tell  the  gentle- 
man that  if  It  is  cut  down  to  one  hundred  and  fifty  members  by 
us  here,  the  proposition  will  never  be  ratified  by  the  people. 
If  we  can  cut  the  house  down  seventy-five  members,  I  shall  be 
satisfied  ;  but  the  way  that  that  can  be  done  has  not  yet  been 
devised.  When  we  attempt  to  cut  it  down,  we  shall  find  it  is 
difficult  work.  When  you  survey  the  field,  you  will  find  it  is 
very  difficult  to  cut  this  house  down  over  fifty  or  seventy-five 
members  ;  and  then,  if  that  is  done,  we  shall  have  a  large  house, 
and  a  senate  of  thirty-six  is  quite  small  enough. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Peterborough.  I  think  that  twenty-four  is  an 
appropriate  number  for  the  size  of  the  senate.  As  the  senate- 
room  is  now  fitted  up  there  are  twelve  seats,  and  another  circle 
could  be  placed  behind  that  one.  I  think  that  twenty-four  is 
about  as  many  members  as  can  be  accommodated  at  present  in 
that  chamber,  without  enlarging  the  present  house,  or  building 
a  new  one.  That  is  as  far  as  my  knowledge  of  it  is  concerned. 
Twenty-four,  in  my  opinion,  is  as  large  as  we  want. 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner.  In  reference  to  the  seating  capacity 
of  the  senate-chamber,  I  will  say,  that  if  the  gentlemen  will  go 
and  measure  the  senate-chamber,  they  will  find  that  fifty  mem- 
bers can  be  accommodated  probably  better  than  representatives 
are  accommodated  in  this  hall.  There  is  no  trouble  in  arrang- 
ing the  senate-chamber  for  fifty  members.  There  is  plenty  of 
room  for  three  rows  of  seats,  and  fifty  members  can  certainly  be 
accommodated. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  It  is  argued  that  because  we  have 
a  large  house,  we  ought  to  have  a  large  senate.  I  do  not  think 
so.  The  intention  of  the  founders  of  our  government  was  to 
have  a  large  house  of  representatives  and  a  small  senate,  and 
that  is  the  way  they  fixed  it.  And  it  is  said  that  a  senate  of 
twelve  men  would  sometimes  be  a  check  upon  what  has  been 
done  by  the  whole  house,  consisting  of  about  four  hundred 
members.  I  know  that  is  so  ;  but  I  am  inclined  to  think,  that  if 
public  opinion  has  been  in  favor  of  it,  it  is  better  policy  for  us 
to  have  a  small  senate  and  a  large  house.  In  proportion  to  the 
whole  population  of  the  state,  twenty-four  will  be  large  for  the 
senate  as  compared  with  the  house.     Why,  a  senate  of  twenty- 


154  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

four  would  be  very  much  larger  in  proportion  to  the  whole 
population  of  the  state  than  any  of  these  large  states  ;  but  we 
need  not  cut  the  house  down  so  as  to  make  it  only  three  or  four 
times  as  large  as  the  senate.  I  don't  understand  the  argument 
to  be  legitimate,  that,  because  we  have  so  large  a  house,  we 
therefore  ought  to  have  a  senate  in  proportion.  I  think  that 
the  senate  ought  to  be  enlarged.  I  expressed  an  opinion  in  favor 
of  enlarging  the  senate  to  twenty-four  instead  of  thirty-six,  be- 
cause, even  with  twenty-four,  we  shall  have  a  number  larger 
in  proportion  to  the  population, — and,  in  addition  to  that,  we 
shall  have  a  larger  house, — than  any  other  state  in  the  Union, 
according  to  its  population. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  see  no  relation  between  the  num- 
ber of  the  senate  and  the  number  of  the  house.  Let  us  form  a 
senate  independent  of  the  house, — one  that  we  think  will  meet 
with  the  approbation  of  the  people  of  New  Hampshire, — and 
let  that  senate  stand  for  all  time,  or  until  it  is  found  best  to 
change  it.  I  submit  that  twenty-four  members  for  the  senate  is 
enough. 

Mr.  George  of  Barnstead.  My  honest  opinion  is,  that  if 
you  make  an  increase  of  the  senate  from  twelve  to  thirty-six, 
and  reduce  the  house  to  one  hundred  and  fifty  members,  the 
people  of  New  Hampshire  will  never  ratify  what  we  do,  and  I 
consequently  shall  go  for  the  proposed  amendment  of  twenty- 
four. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter.  I  would  suggest  that  it  is  unneces- 
sary to  make  these  verbal  amendments,  as  the  committee  having 
the  whole  subject  in  charge  can  do  that.  The  committee  hav- 
ing decided  that  they  will  increase  the  senate  to  twenty-four 
members,  all  the  grammatical  changes  to  accord  with  that 
change  can  easily  be  made  by  the  committee,  and  thus  save 
the  convention  much  valuable  time. 

Mr.  Burns  of  Lancaster  called  for  a  division  of  the  question. 

And  the  question  being  stated  :  Shall  the  word  "  twelve"  be 
stricken  out? — it  was  decided  in  the  affirmative,  and  the  word 
"  twelve  "  was  stricken  out. 

And  the  question  being  stated:  Shall  the  word  "thirty-six" 
be  inserted? — it  was  declared  rejected. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I  55 

Whereupon  a  division  was  called  for,  and  29  gentlemen  voted 
in  the  affirmative  and  225  in  the  negative,  and  the  motion  was 
rejected. 

And  the  question  being  stated:  Shall  the  word  "twenty- 
four"  be  inserted? — it  was  decided  in  the  affirmative. 

"Whereupon  a  division  was  called  for,  and  221  gentlemen 
voted  in  the  affirmative  and  34  in  the  negative,  and  the  affirm- 
ative prevailed,  and  the  word  "twenty-four"  is  inserted,  and 
the  amendment  adopted. 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth  moved  his  proposition  as  an 
amendment,  and  the  same  was  declared  rejected. 

Whereupon  a  division  was  called  for. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  agree  with  the  gentleman  from 
Plymouth  in  regard  to  the  gerrymandering  of  the  districts,  and 
I  think  that  it  would  be  well  to  provide  in  one  of  these  articles 
that  there  shall  be  no  redisricting  oftener  than  once  in  ten 
years.     I  make  that  as  a  suggestion. 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth.  I  would  be  very  happy  to  accept 
this  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Dover,  if  he  will  go  back 
and  take  the  year  1S70  as  the  districts  then  were. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  That  is  the  work  of  the  legislature,  and  not 
of  the  convention. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  75  gentlemen  voted  in  the 
affirmative  and  126  in  the  negative,  and  the  negative  prevailed, 
and  the  amendment  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Cole  of  Gilford  moved  to  amend  Article  25  by  striking 
out  the  words  "  one  year  "  and  inserting  "  two  years," — but 
subsequently  withdrew  the  same. 

Mr.  Bingham  of  Littleton.  My  understanding  of  the  present 
condition  of  the  26th  Article  is,  that  the  committee  have  voted 
to  have  twenty-four  members  in  the  senate,  but  have  made  no 
change  in  regard  to  the  districts,  and,  consequently,  if  there  are 
to  be  twenty-four  members,  more  than  one  member  will  have 
to  be  taken  from  a  district.  My  impression  is,  that,  if  it  is  ex- 
pected that  the  people  will  ratify  this  increase  of  the  senate, 
there  should  also  be  some  provision  for  a  change  in  the  districts 


I56  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

as  now  constituted.  I  think  that  I  shall  be  corroborated  when 
I  say  that  they  are  now  very  unfairly  constituted  in  favor  of  one 
party  and  against  the  other,  and  I  think  the  truth  of  what  I  say 
will  be  apparent ;  and  because,  therefore,  I  think  it  will  be  much 
more  difficult  to  constitute  twenty-four  districts  unfairly  than  it 
would  to  constitute  twelve,  I  move  the  following  amendment : 

To  Article  26.  By  striking  out  the  word  "  twelve,"  and  in- 
serting the  word  "  twenty-four." 

And  the  same  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter  introduced  the  following  amendment : 

To  Article  26.  By  inserting  the  following  words  :  "  Pro- 
vided, that  no  new  division  of  districts  shall  be  made  except  in 
the  years  when  a  new  apportionment  of  taxes  shall  be  made." 

Mr.  Bartlett  of  Manchester.  The  gentleman's  amendment  is 
open  to  this  difficulty.  His  amendment  provides  that  the  state 
shall  not  be  redistricted  for  senators  except  in  the  year  when 
there  shall  be  an  apportionment  of  public  taxes.  Suppose  the 
legislature  of  any  year  desires  to  redistrict  the  state  into  sena- 
torial districts :  all  they  have  to  do  is  to  order  a  new  apportion- 
ment of  public  taxes. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Portsmouth.  It  strikes  me  that  this  amend- 
ment, if  adopted,  would  lead  to  our  interfering  somewhat  with 
the  rights  of  the  people.  I  think  the  legislature  would  claim 
the  right  to  redistrict  the  state  if  they  saw  fit,  and  when  they 
saw  fit,  and  they  would  find  some  way  to  do  it.  It  strikes  me 
it  is  one  of  those  things  that  had  better  be  left  for  the  people. 
I  do  not  see  the  necessity  of  tying  up  things  so  that  the  people 
will  not  have  any  power  to  act  in  the  state. 

Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter.  In  regard  to  the  times  when  the  appor- 
tionment is  made,  they  are  fixed  by  the  general  law  of  the  state. 
It  would  not  be  in  the  power  of  the  legislature  of  the  state  to 
make  a  new  apportionment,  except  by  ordering  a  new  valua- 
tion to  be  made,  which  they  may  only  make  for  the  next  year. 

Mr.  Bingham  of  Littleton.  I  am  afraid,  sir,  that  the  propo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  Exeter  [Mr.  Bell]  will  fail  to  rem- 
edy the  evil  which  he  desires  to  reach  ;  in  fact,  sir,  I  fear  that  it 
will  aggravate  that  evil.    We  can  have  no  assurance  that  when 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  1 57 

the  districts  are  constituted,  and  remain  intact,  unchanged,  and 
unchangeable  for  five  years — we  can  have  no  assurance  but  that 
they  will  be  the  most  outrageous  gerrymander  that  could  ever 
be  accomplished  ; — we  can  have  no  assurance  of  that.   And  then 
the  fact — if  it  should  be  so — if  an  unscrupulous  political  party 
should  happen  to  be  in  power,  we  should  see  that  party  gerry- 
mandering this    state    most  outrageously   for   the  purpose   of 
carrying  out  its  own  plans ;  and  then  the  people  are  caught,  as 
it  were,  in  a  trap.     It  shuts  right  down  upon  that  gerrymander 
for  five  years.    And  it  seems  to  me — perhaps  I  am  unreasonable 
in  my  fears — but  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  good  reason  to 
apprehend  that  that  matter  will  be  conducted  in  that  way  ;  that 
one  party  or  the  other  may  be  in  power  when  the  five  years 
comes  around,  and  make  their  gerrymander,  and  there  it  has  got 
to  stay,  with  no  power  to  right  it.     I  am  of  the  impression  that 
I  should  rather  not  have  this  litigation.    I  am  of  the  impression 
that  I  should  rather  take  my  chance,  in  case  of  a  gerrymander, 
to  have  it  open  to  be  revised  and  corrected  as  soon  as  the  peo- 
ple come  to  their  senses  ;  and  when  they  have  once  come  to 
their  senses  after  having  had  "a  high  old  time,"  they  are  not 
very  apt  to  get  drunk  again  for  some  time.     I  should  rather 
rely  on  the  people,  sir,  than  to  make  a  limitation  of  this  sort, 
which  I  really  apprehend  would  be  likely  to  operate  as  a  trap 
in  which  designing  politicians  might  catch  the  liberties  of  the 
people  and  shut  them  up  for  five  years. 

Mr.  Jackson  of  Manchester.  I  have  listened  to  all  these  vari- 
ous propositions,  and  it  must  be  clear  to  every  member  of  this 
committee  that  there  is  a  great  hatred  to  gerrymandering.  I 
suppose  that  is  so,  because  we  have  all  suffered  some  inconven- 
ience, and  seen  the  partisan  spirit  and  the  baseness  with  which 
it  is  done  ;  and  if  there  is  any  way  under  the  sun  by  which  His 
Majesty's  "gerrymander"  can  be  floored  and  silenced  forever, 
I  think  this  committee  would  be  very  glad  to  find  out  that  meth- 
od. I  have  in  my  hands  a  proposition  which  I  desire  to  submit 
to  this  committee.  It  is  a  proposition  which  is  to  be  found  in 
the  constitution  of  Illinois,  under  the  head  of  "  minority  rep- 
resentation." When  once  engrafted  into  the  Constitution,  it 
secures  to  large  minorities  a  certain  portion  of  representation 
in  every  instance  where  three  or  four  persons  are  voted  for. 


I58  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

The  Chairman.  The  opinion  of  the  chair  would  be,  that  the 
suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester  would  be  hardly 
germane  to  the  proposition  under  discussion. 

Mr.  Jackson.  It  seems  proper  to  me,  because,  if  received 
with  favor  by  the  committee,  it  would  allay  the  difficulty  of  dis- 
tricting the  state  in  a  partisan  manner. 

The  Chairman.    The  chair  rules  the  proposition  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  If  it  were  possible  to  provide  in 
some  way  that  the  senatorial  districts  should  be  constituted  by 
some  impartial  committee,  or  commission,  made  up  of  both  or 
all  the  political  parties,  then  I  think,  when  once  done,  it  would 
be  very  well  to  prevent  any  future  redisricting  of  the  state  by 
either  political  party,  at  least  until  there  was  some  occasion  for 
it  on  account  of  some  change  in  the  valuation  of  the  state.  But, 
so  far  as  I  am  able  to  see,  I  know  of  no  way  of  dividing  the 
state  into  senatorial  districts — unless  we  provide  a  special  way 
— except  in  the  ordinary  way  by  the  legislature.  We  have  got 
to  get  out  of  this  ordinary  way  ;  and  I  believe  in  some  special 
way  for  districting  the  state,  in  order  to  have  it  done  without 
distinction  of  party, — which  I  do  not  know  how  we  can  do  as 
a  convention.  As  I  said,  if  we  could  have  this  districting  made 
by  a  commission  made  up  of  two  or  three  from  each  political 
party — made  even — and  should  then  make  a  division  that  they 
would  be  satisfied  with — then  I  would  go  for  keeping  it  for  a 
certain  length  of  time.  But  as  it  now  stands,  it  strikes  me, — 
although  in  favor  of  fixing  it  providing  it  could  be  made  right, 
— if  we  want  our  work  to  be  accepted  by  the  people,  we  had 
better  let  this  matter  be  as  has  been  suggested  by  our  friend 
from  Littleton. 

Somebody  would  think  that  the  party  in  power,  whichever 
it  might  be  that  had  districted  the  state,  had  not  done  it  exactly 
to  suit  them,  and  the  result  would  be  that  they  would  vote 
against  the  whole  work  of  the  convention,  for  fear  that  the 
political  party  would  make  up  this  districting,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, not  exactly  to  suit  them,  and  they  be  precluded  from 
altering  it.  My  own  view  is,  although  I  should  be  in  favor  of 
fixing  it  at  five  or  ten  years,  provided  you  could  have  it  done, 
in  the  first  place,  to  be  satisfactory  to  the  people  generally  ;  yet 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  I  59 

I  cannot  see  any  way  of  accomplishing-  that,  and  therefore  I 
think  it  may  be  as  well  to  leave  the  whole  thing  as  it  is,  and 
not  do  anything.  If  you  do,  some  party  will  say,  "Why,  the 
party  that  first  makes  these  districts  will  do  so  as  against  us, 
and  if  you  cannot  change  it  under  five  years  we  won't  vote 
for  it  at  all ;  we  will  vote  against  the  whole  thing."  Although 
I  would  be  in  favor  of  fixing  it,  if  we  could,  and  be  sure  of 
having  it  right  in  the  first  place  to  suit  the  people,  yet,  taking 
into  account  all  that  can  be  said  on  one  side  and  the  other,  I 
am  inclined  to  think  that  we  had  better  leave  it  as  it  is  rather 
than  undertake  to  change  it. 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth  moved  to  amend  the  amendment 
by  striking  out  all  after  the  word  "except,"  and  inserting  the 
words  "  not  oftener  than  once  in  five  years." 

And  the  amendment  to  the  amendment  was  declared  carried. 

Whereupon  a  division  was  called  for,  and  1S4  gentlemen 
voting  in  the  affirmative  and  35  in  the  negative,  the  affirma- 
tive prevailed,  and  the  amendment  to  the  amendment  was 
adopted. 

The  question  recurring  upon  the  amendment  as  amended,  the 
same  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Thompson  of  Concord  introduced  the  following  amend- 
ment : 

To  Article  26.  Strike  out  the  words  "  the  proportion  of 
direct  taxes  paid  by  the  said  districts,"  and  insert  the  following  : 
"  the  population  as  shown  by  the  most  recent  United  States 
census  ;  and  no  division  shall  be  made  oftener  than  once  in  ten 
years." 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth  moved  to  amend  the  amendment 
by  striking  out  all  after  the  word  "  following,"  and  inserting  the 
following:  "  Each  county  shall  be  a  senatorial  district.  Rock- 
ingham district  shall  have  4  senators  ;  Strafford,  3  ;  Belknap,  2  ; 
Carroll,  2  ;  Merrimack,  4  ;  Hillsborough,  6  ;  Cheshire,  3  ;  Sulli- 
van, 2  ;  Grafton,  4  ;  Coos,  2." 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua.  By  general  consent  we  are  groaning 
under  the  rule  of  this  King  Gerrymander;  we  are  in  great  dan- 


l60  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

ger  of  losing  our  self-respect  in  our  obedience  to  party  dictates. 
Now,  I  have  a  proposition — and  I  hope  the  chair  will  indulge 
me  a  moment  if  I  seem  to  travel  a  little  out  of  the  proper  con- 
sideration of  this  question — I  have  a  proposition  which  has 
come  to  my  mind  very  recently,  but  which  certainly  seems  to 
have  some  of  the  elements  of  fairness  and  permanency.  The 
gentleman  from  Plymouth  has  proposed  to  divide  the  state,  as 
I  understand  him,  into  ten  senatorial  districts,  each  district  to 
consist  of  one  county,  and  each  county  to  have  a  certain  repre- 
sentation in  the  senate,  if  I  am  correctly  informed  of  his  propo- 
sition. Now,  if  you  will  refer  to  the  printed  slips  before  us, 
you  will  see  that  the  population  of  the  several  counties  runs 
like  this  :  Rockingham  has  nearly  50,000,  Strafford  substan- 
tially 30,000,  Belknap  substantially  17,000,  and  so  on, — some 
10,000,  or  some  multiple  of  10,000.  Now  those  counties  are 
very  likely  to  remain,  so  far  as  their  population  is  concerned, 
as  they  now  are  ; — at  any  rate,  if  the  population  of  the  several 
counties  changes,  it  will  change  in  favor  of  the  smaller  towns 
and  against  the  other  towns.  Now,  if  we  could  have  a  senate 
consisting  of  about  30  members, — I  am  in  favor  of  24, — but  if 
we  could  have  a  senate  consisting  of  about  30  members,  we 
could  divide  them  among  the  counties,  and  Rockingham  would 
have  its  proportion  ;  it  would  have  such  a  proportion  of  the 
30  senators  as  50,000  bears  to  the  whole  population  of  the  state. 
Now  it  seems  to  me,  that,  considering  that  the  committee  is  in 
such  a  creditable  frame  of  mind,  in  an  attitude  of  hostility 
to  all  this  gerrymandering,  it  is  worth  our  while  to  stop 
and  consider,  and  see  if  we  cannot  apportion  these  senators, — 
be  they  24,  30,  or  36, — among  the  several  counties,  so  that  the 
political  parties  shall  not  be  injured,  so  that  the  people  shall  be 
fairly  represented,  and  we  have  unchangeable  senatorial  dis- 
tricts from  this  time  until  such  time  as  another  constitutional 
convention  assemble. 

Mr.  Bingham  of  Littleton.  I  like  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Nashua  so  far  as  it  goes,  and  if  he  will  add  to  his 
proposition  the  proposition  which  was  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Manchester  [Mr.  Jackson],  I  will  go  for  the  whole  thing, 
heart  and  soul,  and  I  think  it  will  put  the  representation  of  the 
senate  in  the  most  permanent,  fair,  and  secure  way  that  it  pos- 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  l6l 

sibly  can  be  put, — that  is,  that  he  shall  apportion  the  thirty 
senators  among  the  ten  counties  according  to  population  ;  then, 
in  each  county  where  the  number  of  senators  to  be  elected  is 
three  or  more,  there  apply  your  system  of  cumulative  voting. 
If  that  be  done,  I  will  go  for  the  proposition. 

Mr.  Sawtell  of  Lyme.  Would  it  not  be  well  for  the  com- 
mittee to  consider  the  subject  of  having  the  districting  done  by 
the  supreme  court  once  in  five  years?  I  simply  throw  out  the 
suggestion,  as  requested  by  gentlemen  in  this  part  of  the  house. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Whittemore  of  Pembroke, 

Ordered,  That  the  committee  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask 
leave  to  sit  again. 

IN    CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Sanborn,  chairman,  reported  that  the  committee  of  the 
whole  had  had  under  consideration  so  much  of  Part  Second  of 
the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  legislative  department,  without 
concluding,  and  asked  leave  to  sit  again. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter,  the  convention  adjourned. 

AFTERNOON. 

Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  M.  C.  Burleigh  of  Somersworth,  the  con- 
vention resolved  itself  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  that  part 
of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution  which  relates  to  the  legisla- 
tive department. 

IN    COMMITTEE    OF    THE    WHOLE. 

(Mr.  Frink  of  Greenland  in  the  chair.) 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Mason  of  Moultonborough,  by  unanimous 
consent  the  several  articles,  to  Article  2S,  were  laid  aside  for  the 
present. 

Mr.  Mason  introduced  the  following  amendment  to  Article  2S  : 

After  the  word  ''manner"  in  the  second   line,   add  "legal 
voters  ;"  and  instead  of  the  word  "  March  "  in  the  ninth  line, 
insert  "  November." 
II 


I 62  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

And  add,  after  the  whole  article,  the  following :  "And  a  legal 
voter  shall  be  decided  to  be  a  male  inhabitant  who  shall  have 
paid  a  poll  tax  in  the  town  the  year  previous, — unless  seventy 
years  of  age,  or  upwards, — shall  have  resided  within  the  town 
six  months  next  preceding  the  election,  or  attained  his  major- 
ity within  the  year,  or  become  a  new  inhabitant  six  months 
prior  to  the  election. 

Mr.  Mason.  I  have  but  a  few  remarks  that  I  wish  to  offer  at 
the  present  time.  I  believe  it  is  clear  enough.  All  the  striking 
out  I  propose  to  do  is  simply  after  the  word  "  manner"  in  the 
second  line,  to  wit,  "  every  male  inhabitant."  I  simply  wish 
to  strike  that  out,  and  to  insert  in  its  place  "  every  legal  voter." 
And  then  there  is  no  other  change  in  the  article  whatever  until 
we  get  down  to  the  ninth  line.  Then  I  propose  to  strike  out  the 
word  "March,"  and  insert  "November."  I  think,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, it  is  very  proper  that  we  should  come  to  some  conclusion 
at  this  time,  and  in  this  article,  in  relation  to  what  constitutes  a 
legal  voter.  I  do  not  propose  by  this  to  establish  any  basis  up- 
on the  legal  voter :  by  no  means.  It  is  simply  to  define  a  legal 
voter.  You  know  that  our  state  authorities,  the  selectmen  of 
our  towns,  have  been  embarrassed  very  much  by  the  provision 
of  the  Constitution  which  allowed  every  inhabitant  to  vote  ;  and 
consequently  the  legislature  passed  a  law  requiring  every  voter 
to  have  lived  in  the  town  six  months  prior  to  the  election.  Now 
you  see  how  directly  that  is  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution, 
for  it  says  "every  inhabitant."  Now,  "inhabitant"  means  a 
man  who  lives  in  a  place  ;  who  makes  it  his  home  ;  and,  con- 
stitutionally, every  man  who  lives  in  a  town  one  day  before  the 
election  has  a  constitutional  right  to  vote  in  that  town.  If  car- 
ried before  the  supreme  court  of  this  state,  they  would  be  obliged 
to  decide  in  favor  of  the  man  who  has  been  deprived  of  his  con- 
stitutional right.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  been  living 
and  acting  under  a  law  that  really  is  unconstitutional.  I  do 
not  say  it  as  a  lawyer — I  am  not  a  lawyer.  I  have  heard  good 
lawyers  say  the  same.  I  remember  once  on  the  floor  in  this 
house  I  heard  a  prominent  lawyer — several  of  them — at  that 
time  admit  that  that  law  was  unconstitutional ;  but  for  some 
reason  every  one  consented  that  this  matter  should  be  enfoixed, 
and  so  it  has  never  been  brought  before  the  supreme  court. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  1 63 

Now  is  a  good  time  to  do  away  with  this.  The  same  objection 
may  be  made  in  the  future.  We  may  say  that  we  have  lived 
under  this  law  so  long  that  it  has  become  part  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. That  is  not  so.  We  are  now  to  make  a  new  Constitution, 
and  it  is  quite  as  well  to  define  what  a  voter  is  here,  as  to  go  to 
the  legislature  and  let  them  do  it  in  violation  of  the  Constitution. 
Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  simply  propose  that  the  words  "  legal 
voter  "  shall  be  put  in  place  of  the  word  "  inhabitant ;"  because, 
if  it  says  "  inhabitant,"  we  must  certainly  do  away  with  the  law. 
We  now  profess  that  a  man  shall  live  six  months  in  a  town  be- 
fore he  votes.  So,  if  we  do  away  with  the  word  "  inhabitant," 
we  can  call  it  "  legal  voter,"  and  define  a  legal  voter  to  be  a 
man  who  has  paid  his  poll-tax  the  year  previous.  If  he  has  be- 
come a  resident  six  months  prior  to  the  election,  then  he  has 
a  constitutional  right  to  vote.  I  myself  can  see  no  objection 
why  that  should  not  be  placed  here,  and,  in  fact,  I  can  see 
every  reason  why  it  should  be  placed  in  this  article, — because 
the  qualified  voter  for  representative  is  the  qualified  voter  for 
senator,  and  the  qualified  voter  for  councillor  is  the  qualified 
voter  for  senator; — so,  if  we  establish  what  is  a  qualified  voter 
for  senator,  we  establish  all  the  rest. 

Mr.  Murray  of  Canaan.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  article  of 
the  Constitution  reads  very  plain.  It  says  here  that  "  every 
male  inhabitant  of  each  town  and  parish  with  town  privileges, 
and  places  unincorporated,  in  this  state,  of  twenty-one  years  of 
age  and  upward,  excepting  paupers  and  persons  excused  from 
paying  taxes  at  their  own  request,  shall  have  a  right"  to  vote. 
So  I  cannot  see  what  plainer  definition  of  a  legal  voter  you  could 
have  than  that.  That  is,  to  my  mind,  very  explicit,  very  plain, 
and  is  a  good  definition,  about  which  there  can  be  no  doubt  or 
question  ;  and  I  hope  the  amendment  the  gentleman  has  pro- 
posed will  not  prevail,  for  I  think  we  should  mar  the  beauty  of 
expression  of  this  part  of  the  Constitution  very  much  if  the 
amendment  were  to  prevail. 

Mr.  Mason.  I  did  not  for  a  moment  suppose  that  this  part 
of  the  article  was  not  plain  ;  in  fact,  it  was  because  it  was  so 
plain  that  I  wished  to  make  the  alteration.  It  is  plain  enough, 
if  you  are  willing  that  every  man  should  vote  who  is  an  inhab- 


I 64  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

itant.  If  you  are  willing  that  a  man,  who  lives  in  a  town  twenty- 
four  hours  before  the  election,  should  vote,  then  it  is  all  well 
as  it  stands  ;  and  if  you  mean  to  live  under  an  act  already 
passed,  that  requires  a  residence  of  six  months,  then  I  think 
the  language  in  the  article  is  not  near  so  clear  as  the  gentleman 
[Mr.  Murray]  would  have  us  understand.  It  is  for  this  purpose 
that  I  ask  this  to  be  stricken  out, — that  we  may  not  live  under 
an  unconstitutional  law. 

Mr.  Stickney  of  Exeter.  Does  the  gentleman  intend  that 
foreigners  who  have  not  been  naturalized  shall  be  legal  voters? 

Mr.  Mason.  I  suppose  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  foreigners 
whatever.  I  suppose  a  foreigner  is  not  a  voter,  and  cannot  be, 
constitutionally. 

Mr.  Stickney.  Whether  he  would  not  be,  by  the  proposition 
as  the  gentleman  states  it. 

Mr.  Mason.     I  do  not  understand  it  so. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was  rejected. 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  Thompson  of  Concord,  with  the 
amendment  of  Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth  to  the  same,  being 
before  the  committee,  Mr.  Murray  of  Canaan  raised  the  point 
of  order  that  Mr.  Burrows's  amendment  was  out  of  order. 

And  the  point  of  order  was  sustained  by  the  chair. 

The  question  recurring  upon  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Thomp- 
son of  Concord — 

Mr.  Murray  of  Canaan.  Upon  this  question,  I  desire  to  say 
one  word.  I  am  opposed  to  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  for  this  reason:  I  believe  it  is  the 
policy,  or  has  been  the  policy,  of  our  government  that  the 
legislature  should  represent  the  people, — that  is,  the  house  of 
representatives  should  represent  the  people  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire.  The  senate  is  another  branch,  and,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  its  duty  is,  or  has  been,  to  guard  the  people's  money ; 
that  is,  it  corresponds  with  the  House  of  Lords,  while  the 
house  of  representatives  corresponds  with  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. The  senate  takes  care  of  the  money  and  guards  the 
treasury  of  the  people.     Well,  now,  that  being  so,  I  do  not 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  16$ 

think  it  would  be  fair  to  have  the  basis  of  representation  of 
both  the  house  and  the  senate  fixed  upon  population,  or 
upon  the  legal  voters,  or  upon  ratable  polls.  I  think  that  our 
fathers  very  wisely  provided  for  this  in  the  very  language  of 
this  Article  26,  and  in  making  this  division  they  usually  gov- 
erned themselves  by  the  proportion  of  direct  taxes.  Now  I 
undertake  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  framcrs  of  the  Con- 
stitution entertained  just  that  view, — that  the  senate  was  the 
guardian  of  the  property  of  the  state,  of  the  treasury  of  the 
state  ;  and  the  house  of  representatives  represents  the  people. 
That  is  the  fundamental  principle  of  our  government,  as  I  un- 
derstand it,  and  I  am  opposed  to  changing  it.  I  am  opposed  to 
so  radical  a  change  as  to  have  the  senate  and  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives based  either  upon  the  population,  or  upon  ratable 
polls,  or  upon  legal  voters.  It  should  stand  upon  the  wealth, 
upon  the  public  taxes,  just  where  the  framers  of  this  Constitu- 
tion left  it — a  wise  provision,  in  my  judgment ;  and  i  hope  that 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord  will  not  prevail. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Brown  of  Kensington  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

Resolved,  That  all  of  the  26th  Article  after  the  words 
"  twenty-four  districts "  be  stricken  out,  and  the  following 
be  added  :  "  of  contiguous  territory,  and  of  as  equal  popula- 
tion as  may  be  practicable." 

Which  was  rejected. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Atkinson  of  Northumberland,  the  follow- 
ing amendment  was  adopted  : 

To  Article  29.  Strike  out,  after  the  words  "  elected  a  sena- 
tor," the  words  "who  is  not  of  the  Protestant  religion." 

Mr.  Fowler  of  Pembroke  introduced  the  following  amend- 
ment : 

To  Article  29.  In  line  four,  strike  out  the  word  ';  seven," 
and  insert  the  word  "  three." 

And  the  amendment  was  rejected. 


1 66  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

Mr.  Jackson  of  Manchester  introduced  the  following  amend- 
ment : 

To  Article  30.  Add  at  the  end  the  words,  "  In  all  elections, 
where  three  or  more  persons  are  to  be  elected  to  the  same  grade 
of  office,  such  voter  may  cast  as  many  votes  for  one  candidate 
as  there  are  persons  to  be  elected,  or  may  distribute  the  same 
in  equal  parts  thereof  among  the  candidates  as  he  shall  see  fit; 
and  the  candidates  highest  in  votes  shall  be  declared  elected." 

Mr.  Jackson.  I  do  not  propose  to  strike  anything  out  of  this 
article.  I  had  prepared  to  add  to  it,  and  I  indicated  the  proposi- 
tion this  morning.  I  do  not  propose  to  occupy  much  time,  and  I 
will  very  briefly  state  just  what  will  be  the  effect  of  my  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution.  It  will  enable  the  minority  party  in 
every  town  of  the  state  to  elect  one  member  of  the  board  of 
selectmen,  and  in  every  city  it  will  enable  the  minority  party 
in  every  ward  to  secure  one  member  of  the  council ;  and  the 
result  will  be,  that  the  minority  party  will  put  a  man  in  that 
council  who  will  be  a  man  indeed, — one  who  could  raise  the 
character  of  the  other  members  of  that  body.  Again  :  in  evei'y 
town  where  three  republicans  are  chosen  to  the  legislature,  it 
will  give  the  minority  a  chance  to  have  one  of  the  representa- 
tives. Gentlemen,  is  this  desirable? — is  this  safe?  Why,  I  recall 
the  fact  that  there  are  00,000  men  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire 
who  are  not  represented  on  this  floor, — that  is,  the  minority 
party.  Not  one  of  them  is  here  ;  not  one  of  them  occupies  a  seat 
in  this  convention,  except  from  a  town  where  a  majority  of  his 
friends  cast  their  votes  for  him.  The  minority  is  at  home,  and  not 
here.  I  propose  to  give  the  people  an  opportunity  to  express  their 
judgment,  whether  they  are  in  favor  of  minority  representation 
or  not.  I  believe  the  majority  of  this  convention  is  in  favor  of 
it.  It  is  suggested  that  the  people  cannot  understand  it.  Do 
not  flatter  yourselves,  gentlemen,  that  the  minority  party,  when 
they  have  a  right — when  they  have  a  privilege  to  which  they 
are  entitled — do  not  know  how  to  obtain  it.  If  there  is  a  gen- 
tleman present  who  will  say  to  this  committee  that  my  propo- 
sition does  not  secure  what  I  have  suggested,  I  would  like  to 
hear  from  him.  I  simply  suggest  this  amendment,  that  the 
people  may  consider  it,  that  this  committee  may  consider  it, 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  \6"J 

and  that  it  may  go  before  the  people  for  their  action.  My 
voice  is  not  in  a  condition  to  allow  me  to  talk  more  ;  so  you 
will  excuse  me,  gentlemen,  from  proceeding  further. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill.  I  regret  to  differ  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Manchester,  but  I  believe  that  the  party  in  power  has 
always  to  be  burdened  with  the  responsibility  for  all  that  goes 
on  in  the  state.  I  believe,  further,  that  the  idea  of  power  in  this 
way  is  erroneous.  And  one  more  thing:  I  believe  that  it  would 
be  infinitely  better  in  the  cities  and  towns  that  the  party  having 
the  political  power  should  have  it  in  unity  and  peace.  I  am 
in  favor  entirely,  sir,  of  controlling  and  electing  full  political 
tickets  in  the  cities  that  shall  be  entitled  to  more  than  one  rep- 
resentative. For  that  reason,  harmoniously,  they  would  give 
weight  to  their  opinion  ;  divided,  they  would  simply  deprive 
their  locality  of  all  its  political  influence. 

Mr.  Bingham  of  Littleton.  I  regard  this  proposition  as  very 
much  the  most  important  proposition  that  can  come  before  this 
body, — the  question  whether  this  system  of  voting  shall  be 
adopted  ;  and  I  call  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  it,  for  the  purpose 
of  directing  the  individual  attention  of  every  member  of  the 
body  to  the  subject,  that  he  may  consider  it,  that  the  people 
may  consider  it, — as  I  regard  it  as  one  of  reform,  and  through 
and  by  its  means  the  republic  is  to  be  regenerated.  The  idea 
is  simply  this :  by  the  adoption  of  this  system  the  effect  would 
be,  to  secure  the  representation  of  the  minority  among  the 
people  in  the  representative  body  ;  and  if  you  adopt  this  sys- 
tem of  voting,  you  will  have  a  minority  in  the  representative 
body  having  the  same  relation  to  the  whole  number  in  that  repre- 
sentative body  that  the  minority  of  the  people  bears  to  the  whole 
number  of  the  people.  For  instance,  here  is  the  city  of  Manches- 
ter :  We  will  say,  if  they  elect  upon  one  ticket — and  they  do  under 
this  system  of  voting — a  majority  of  one  or  two  or  three  hun- 
dred would  elect  the  entire  delegation.  If  this  minority  system 
of  voting  was  adopted,  you  would  then  have  representatives 
from  Manchester  corresponding  to  the  political  body  there 
among  the  people.  And  I  look  upon  the  effect  of  the  adoption 
of  such  a  system  of  voting  as  this  :  that  the  minority  would  be 
sure,  if  they  could  elect  but  one  or  two  men  out  of  the  large 


l68  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

body  of  men,  to  elect  their  strongest  man, — sure  of  obtaining 
the  best  man  they  had,  and  putting  him  into  the  legislative 
body,  and,  in  consequence,  in  order  to  meet  that  man,  the 
other  party  would  be  obliged  to  elect  their  best  men  ;  and  I 
think  the  inevitable  tendency,  the  inevitable  consequence  of 
adopting  this  system  of  voting,  would  be,  to  give  us  legislators 
on  both  sides — both  minority  and  majority — more  elevated  in 
point  of  ability  and  character  in  all  respects  than  they  now 
are  ;  and  I  therefore  call  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  this  question, 
that  each  individual  may  put  his  opinion  upon  this  matter  on 
record. 

Mr.  Quarles  of  Ossipee.  It  occurs  to  me  that  this  minority 
representation  might  be  well  enough  ;  but  when  we  come  to 
elect  representatives,  it  might  come  so,  that  by  uniting  on  five 
men  out  of  the  six  nominated,  and  voting  for  them, — by  doing 
this,  you  might  give  the  minority  party  in  the  state  a  majority 
in  the  state  house  ;  and  it  is  a  dangerous  experiment,  as  applied 
to  the  legislature  in  this  state,  the  way  the  political  parties  now 
stand.  That  effect  is  self-evident.  For  instance,  take  the  towns 
of  Rochester  and  Great  Falls,  or  Somersworth,  I  should  have 
said.  Now,  suppose  that  the  minority  there — that  is,  the  mi- 
nority, as  the  parties  throughout  the  state,  by  representatives 
elected  in  other  towns,  stand — obtain  one  of  these  representa- 
tives in  that  town  :  why  the  state  would  be  represented  by  a 
minority  party  ;  that  is,  a  minority  of  voters  would  have  the 
legislature  in  that  event. 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  I  have  simply  to  make  this  sug- 
gestion to  the  committee,  that  for  eighty  years  or  more  we  have 
stood  by  the  old-fashioned  method  of  majority,  and  we  know  it 
works  well.  Now  another  plan  is  proposed,  about  which  I 
think  very  few  persons  of  this  convention  know  anything — 
certainly  no  one  by  experience  knows  much  about  it  in  this 
state.  It  is  proposed  to  put  it  in  this  Constitution,  and  tie  up 
this  house  where  we  cannot  alter  it  until  we  alter  the  Constitu- 
tion again.  I  do  not  think  we  ought  to  try  the  experiment  in 
this  way. 

Mr.  Thompson  of  Concord.  I  desire  to  show  to  this  com- 
mittee how  this  proposition  would  work.    It  has  been  suggested 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  169 

that  we  should  have  senatorial  districts  by  counties.  Now, 
then,  supposing  we  take  for  illustration  of  this  question  Hills- 
borough county,  which,  by  the  proposition  that  was  suggested 
this  morning,  is  to  have  six  senators.  Now,  suppose  this  ques- 
tion of  adopting  the  minority  representation  should  be  adopted: 
what  would  be  the  effect  of  the  proposition  ?  Take  the  votes 
of  Hillsborough  county  as  they  were  cast  at  the  last  state  elec- 
tion,— take  the  figures  in  round  numbers, — they  stand,  republi- 
cans S,ooo,  democrats  7,000.  Now,  supposing  that  the  whole 
county  is  to  vote  for  six  senators,  what  will  be  the  effect 
of  this  proposition?  The  democrats  are  in  the  minority; — I 
take  this  simply  for  illustration,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen, 
— but  the  democrats  have  7,000  and  the  republicans  S,ooo. 
According  to  this  proposition,  each  one  of  the  7,000  democrats 
may  vote  for  six  candidates,  or  each  one  may  give  two  votes 
for  each  of  three  candidates,  or  each  one  may  give  three  votes 
for  two  candidates,  or  each  one  may  give  one  and  one  fifth 
votes  for  five  candidates,  or  each  one  may  give  one  and  one 
half  votes  for  four  candidates.  Now,  supposing  that  each  one 
of  7,000  voters  in  Hillsborough  county  should  cast  one  and  one 
fifth  votes  for  five  candidates,  notwithstanding  that  the  republi- 
cans have  1,000  majority,  five  of  the  democrats  would  be  elected 
and  only  one  of  the  republicans.  That  is  a  fair  illustration  of 
this  question.  It  would  not  be  so  unfair  in  the  case  where  there 
are  but  three  officers  to  be  elected.  If  you  will  put  it  on  that 
basis  I  will  vote  for  it — where  three  officers  are  to  be  elected  ; 
but  where  you-  take  more  than  that,  it  does  not  operate  fairly. 

Mr.  Jackson.  When  I  am  satisfied  that  one  is  larger  than 
two,  or  that  five  is  larger  than  six,  then  I  will  believe  the  state- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Concord. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Portsmouth.  It  appears  by  the  last  two  speak- 
ers that  no  one  can  understand  it.  One  describes  it  just  opposite 
of  the  other,  and  I  think  there  is  no  one  of  much  statesmanship 
that  has  ever  advocated  it.  Transccndcntalists,  theorists,  and 
that  kind  of  people,  get  up  all  these  ideas.  It  has  been  advo- 
cated by  Abbie  Kelley  and  that  kind  of  people  in  the  United 
States,  but  never  has  it  been  adopted  by  any  respectable  por- 
tion of  the  people.     New  Hampshire  people  are  the  last  that 


170  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

will  do  anything  with  the  good  old  time  theory  that  the  major- 
ity shall  rule  ;  and  I  hope  that  this  amendment  will  not  pre- 
vail. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  whole  mat- 
ter comes  down  to  this :  The  party  who  assumes  political 
work  must  have  control  of  the  powers  here,  if  they  have  got  to 
take  the  responsibility.  Now,  is  it  unjust  to  ask  that  the  party 
that  has  the  responsibility  to  bear  should  also  have  the  power? 

Mr.  Bingham  of  Littleton.  I  shall  certainly  hope  that  this 
committee  will  better  understand  the  operation  of  this  mode  of 
voting  than  they  appear  now  to  understand  it,  before  they  vote 
for  it.  I  should  certainly  hope  that,  under  the  impression  that 
some  gentlemen  have  of  this  system  of  voting,  they  would  not 
adopt  it.  I  understand  it,  sir,  to  be  a  practical  giving — as  near 
as  such  a  thing  can  be  done — the  representation  of  the  various 
parties  in  a  legislative  body,  corresponding  to  the  strength  of 
the  parties  among  the  people  ;  and  the  idea  of,  in  a  given  coun- 
ty, the  minority  electing  five  out  of  six  members  is  something 
that  is  entirely  unknown  to  this  system  of  voting,  and  it  is  en- 
tirely evident  that  the  gentleman  who  talks  about  it  does  not 
understand  it.  And,  so  far  from  Abbie  Kelley's  being  the 
author  of  this  idea,  I  understand  it  is  the  distinguished  politi- 
cian and  social  economist,  Mr.  Mills,  that  is  the  author  of  this 
theory  of  voting,  and  he  has  written  very  much  on  the  subject. 
It  has  been  adopted  successfully  in  Pennsylvania,  to  a  limited 
extent.  It  has  also  been  incorporated  into  the  constitution  of  the 
state  of  Illinois,  and  it  is  said  to  be  working  well  there  ; — indeed, 
it  could  not  do  otherwise  than  operate  well  if  it  is  adopted,  and 
I  have  no  doubt  that  it  would  act  well  in  New  Hampshire  if  it 
were  adopted.  The  fact  that  our  fathers  did  not  know  about  it 
eighty  }rears  ago,  when  they  adopted  this  Constitution,  is  no 
argument  against  it.  I  am  very  far  from  believing  that  our 
fathers  knew  everything ;  they  knew  some  things,  and  knew 
them  very  well,  and  what  they  knew  that  was  good  I  will 
foster ;  but  if  we  can  make  any  improvements  on  what  our 
forefathers  knew,  in  the  name  of  common-sense,  gentlemen,  let 
us  do  so. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Newmarket.     Although  I  am  not  in  favor  of 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I  71 

the  proposition  now  before  the  committee,  I  do  not  understand 
that  the  gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr.  Thompson]  has  received 
a  satisfactory  answer  to  the  figures  he  gave  to  the  committee. 
There  is,  though,  it  seems  to  me,  a  perfect  answer,  in  this :  It 
is  certain  that  if  the  democrats  in  Hillsborough  county,  which 
he  has  cited,  accumulate  on  the  senators,  the  republicans,  in- 
stead of  voting  upon  their  six  men  so  that  the  democrats  would 
elect  their  five,  of  course  would  not  so  vote  ;  they  would  ac- 
cumulate their  vote  on  four  of  them — the  republicans  would  so 
vote  for  their  own  sakes  ;  but,  even  if  the  democrats  would  ac- 
cumulate on  three,  they  will  accumulate  on  four  and  elect  them, 
allowing  the  democrats  to  elect  two. 

Mr.  Cole  of  Gilford.  If  in  order,  I  would  move  to  amend 
that  proposition,  and  make  it  apply  only  for  town  officers. 

Mr.  Parker  of  Fitzwilliam.  I  believe  the  argument  of  the 
distinguished  gentleman  from  Littleton  to  be  eminently  sound  ; 
and  while  I  should  be  willing  to  adopt  this  plan  in  the  abstract, 
still,  as  we  are  sent  here  to  accomplish  certain  limited  things, 
it  maybe  impolitic  for  the  convention  to  adopt  anything  of  this 
kind.  This  minority  representation  is  presented,  I  think,  by 
Professor  Hare,  and  elaborated  by  that  distinguished  states- 
man and  political  economist,  John  Stewart  Mill.  I  believe  it 
has  worked  well  in  the  state  of  Illinois.  Still,  at  this  time,  and 
for  the  reason  I  have  indicated,  I  think  it  unwise  to  submit  the 
amendment  to  the  people. 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was 
declared  rejected. 

Whereupon  a  division  was  called  for,  and  Si  gentlemen  hav- 
ing voted  in  the  affirmative  and  151  in  the  negative,  the  negative 
prevailed. 

Whereupon  the  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded  by  Mr.  Bing- 
ham of  Littleton,  and  the  call  being  duly  seconded,  and  the  roll 
being  called,  the  following  gentlemen  answered  in  the  affirma- 
tive : 

Rockingham  Couxty. — Sanborn  of  Candia,  Bean,  Bell,  Hanson, 
Batchekler,  Clarke  of  Northwood,  Hackett  of  Ward  1,  Portsmouth, 
Marcy,  Wendell,  Brown  of  Raymond,  Hoyt,  Sawyer  of  South  Hampton. 


172  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

Strafford  County. — Wallace  of  Rochester,  McDuffee  of  Roches- 
ter, M.  C.  Burleigh  of  Somersworth,  Woodman  of  Somersworth,  Smith 
of  Strafford. 

Belknap  County. — Hodgdon,  George  of  Barnstead,  Perkins  of  Cen- 
ter Harbor,  Dow,  Tuttle,  Moses,  Shaw  of  Sanbornton. 

Carroll  County. — Pitman,  George  of  Bartlett,  Farrington,  Gran- 
ville, Wentworth  of  Sandwich,  Sanborn  of  Wakefield,  Furber. 

Merrimack  County. — Bosworth,  Gage,  Morse  of  Bradford,  Lyford, 
Tallant,  Hollis,  Gilchrist,  Blake,  Morse  of  Loudon,  Morse  of  Newbury, 
Whittemore,  Knowlton,  Robinson,  Flanders. 

Hillsborough  County. — Burtt,  Dow,  Sleeper,  Cooledge,  Felch, 
Cilley,  Jackson,  Devine,  Sullivan,  O'Connor,  Smith  of  Mont  Vernon, 
Duffy  of  Nashua,  Hutchinson  of  New  Boston,  Woodbury. 

Sullivan  County. — Sholes,  Alexander,  Hodgman  of  Lempster, 
Moulton,  Adams  of  Springfield,  Perkins  of  Unity,  Carr. 

Cheshire  County. — Vilas,  Bill,  Bemis,  Jones  of  Marlow,  Stevens  of 
Stoddard,  Fisher,  Pierce  of  Westmoreland,  Morse  of  Winchester. 

Grafton  County. — Gale,  Carbee,  Mann,  Sinclair,  Applebee,  Walker 
of  Grafton,  Parker  of  Hanover,  Powers,  Stevens  of  Lisbon,  Bingham, 
Eastman,  Farr,  Moulton  of  Lyman,  Lyford,  Putnam. 

Coos  County. — Sawyer  of  Berlin,  Young,  Taylor,  Perkins  of  Jeffer- 
son, Burns,  Atkinson. 

And  the  following  in  the  negative  : 

Rockingham  County. — Clarke  of  Atkinson,  Grant,  Morrill  of  Brent- 
wood, Greenough,  Poor,  Tilton,  Bickford  of  Deerfield,  Folsom,  Edgerly 
of  Epping,  Stickney,  Morrill  of  Exeter,  Marston,  Sanborn  of  Fremont, 
Frink,  Eastman  of  Hampstead,  Dow,  Cram,  Brown  of  Kensington,  Corn- 
ing, Dickey,  Smith  of  Newmarket,  Wallace  of  Newton,  Moulton,  Clark 
of  Plaistow,  Goodwin,  Tredick,  Hackett  of  Ward  2,  Portsmouth,  How- 
ard, Morse  of  Portsmouth,  Marden,  Jenness,  Webster,  Clough,  Healey, 
Berry. 

Strafford  County. — Baker,  Wheeler,  Wallingford,  Bickford  of 
Dover,  Clements,  Smith  of  Durham,  Eastman  of  Farmington,  Huckins, 
Nute,  Woodman  of  Lee,  Meserve,  Perkins  of  Middleton,  Fox  of  Milton, 
Berry  of  New  Durham,  Whitehouse,  Edgerly  of  Rochester,  Jenkins, 
Wentworth  of  Rollinsford,  G.  W.  Burleigh,  Morse  of  Somersworth, 
Jameson  of  Somersworth,  Foss. 

Belknap  County. — Rollins,  Woodman  of  Alton,  Key,  Cole,  Weeks 
of  Gilford,  Sargent  of  Gilmanton,  Marsh,  Whipple,  Richardson,  Dick- 
erman,  Brown  of  Tilton. 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  1 73 

Carroll  COUNTY. — Mason  of  Albany,  Coleman,  Abbott  of  Conway, 
Wakefield,  Danforth  of  Freedom,  Cobb,  Merrow,  Carter,  Ouarles, 
Hubbard,  McDuffee  of  Tuftonborough,  Whitton. 

Merrimack  County. — Perkins  of  Allenstown,  Gault,  Langmaid, 
Brown  of  Concord,  Fox  of  Concord,  Thompson  of  Concord,  Badger, 
Sargent  of  Concord,  John  Kimball  of  Concord,  Wentworth  of  Concord, 
Benjamin  A.  Kimball  of  Concord,  Downing,  Critchett,  Hammond, 
Philbrick,  Sanborn  of  Franklin,  Head,  Jones,  Harvey,  Colby,  Smith  of 
Northfield,  Fowler,  Bean,  Ordway,  Buxton. 

Hillsborough  County. — Davis,  Kendall,  Pattee,  Chamberlain, 
Webber,  Woods  of  Hollis,  Severance,  Eastman  of  Manchester,  Clark 
of  Manchester,  Briggs,  Bartlett,  Waterman  Smith,  Cheney,  Holbrook, 
McQuesten,  Hall,  Bean,  Clapp,  Walker  of  Ward  8,  Manchester,  Parker 
of  Merrimack,  Abbott  of  Milford,  Fiske,  Crosby,  Ramsdell,  Kimball  of 
Nashua,  Spaulding  of  Nashua,  Dearborn,  Parkinson,  Gilman,  Smothers, 
Preston,  Scott,  Smith  of  Peterborough,  Emory  of  Sharon,  Bacon, 
Wood  of  Weare,  Sawyer  of  Weare,  Neville,  Jones  of  Wilton,  Dresser. 

Cheshire  County. — Jackson  of  Chesterfield,  Piper,  Parker  of  Fitz- 
william,  Amidon,  Jones  of  Hinsdale,  Pierce  of  Jaffrey,  Gustine,  Hardy, 
Hatch,  Clarke  of  Keene,  Wellington,  Faulkner  of  Keene,  Fuller,  Mel- 
ville, Converse,  Newell,  Nims,  Wilson,  Harvey,  Lombard,  Faulkner  of 
Swanzey,  Farrar,  Buffum,  Albee. 

Sullivan  County. — Brooks,  Labaree,  Hunt  of  Charlestown,  Tolles, 
Walker  of  Claremont,  Stowell,  Winn,  Rossiter,  Pike  of  Cornish,  Hall, 
Richards,  Cooper,  Sturoc. 

Grafton  County. — Hughes  of  Ashland,  Wilder,  Batchelder  of 
Bridgewater,  Beckford  of  Bristol,  Adams  of  Campton,  Day,  Murray, 
Huse  of  Enfield,  Remick,  Hurlbutt,  Page  of  Haverhill,  Atwood,  Shaw 
of  Lebanon,  Cushman,  Stearns,  Parker  of  Lisbon,  Sawtell,  Hastings, 
Heath,  Pierce  of  Orford,  Gould,  Greeley,  Blodgett  of  Wentworth. 

Coiis  County.— Bedel,  Aldrich,  Harvey,  Wight,  Akers,  Howard, 
Benton,  Twitchell,  Blanchard,  Wood  of  Randolph,  Cummings,  Pike  of 
Stark,  Drew,  Eaton. 

And  95  gentlemen  having  answered  in  the  affirmative,  and 
2i6  in  the  negative,  the  negative  prevailed,  and  the  amend- 
ment was  rejected. 

Mr.  Tilton  of  Deny.  My  attention  was  in  another  direction 
when  the  34th  Article  was  passed  over.  I  have  a  paper  in  ref- 
erence to  that  article.    I  would  present  the  paper  to  the  consid- 


174  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

eration  of  the  committee.     I  offer  it  at  the  request  of  some  of 
my  constituents : 

Strike  out  Article  34,  and  insert  the  following  :  "And  in  case 
there  shall  not  appear  to  be  a  senator  elected  by  a  majority  of 
votes  for  any  district,  the  deficiency  shall  be  supplied  in  the 
following  manner,  namely:  The  members  of  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives from  that  district  shall  take  the  names  of  the 
two  persons  having  the  highest  number  of  votes  in  the  district, 
and  out  of  them  shall  elect  by  ballot  the  senator  wanted  for 
such  district ;  and  in  this  manner  such  vacancies  shall  be  filled 
in  every  district  in  the  state  ;  but  all  vacancies  in  the  senate, 
arising  by  reason  of  death,  removal  out  of  the  state,  or  other- 
wise, shall  be  supplied,  as  soon  as  may  be  after  such  vacancies 
happen,  by  members  of  the  house  of  representatives  from  their 
district,  electing  by  ballot  any  eligible  person  in  the  district." 

Mr.  Tilton.  It  strikes  me  that  this  would  come  in  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  34th  Article.  I  wish  to  say,  for  the  information 
of  the  committee,  that  I  have  been  requested  by  some  gentlemen 
of  both  political  parties  to  present  this.  For  myself,  I  have  been 
fully  persuaded  that  we  are  liable  to  do  too  much  here,  and  so 
end  in  doing  nothing.  I  feel  pretty  well  satisfied  with  the  arti- 
cle as  it  now  stands,  and  yet  I  feel  under  obligations  to  present 
this  matter  in  the  form  it  has  been  presented  to  you.  The  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  this  mode  of  filling  vacancies  is  this,  that,  as  it 
now  stands,  persons  in  different  portions  of  the  state  vote  for  fill- 
ing vacancies  in  the  senate  out  of  the  senatorial  district  where 
they  reside  ;  whereas,  this  plan  would  obviate  that  seeming  in- 
justice, and  bring  the  matter  before  the  members  of  the  house 
from  the  district  where  the  vacancy  occurs.  I  simply  wish  the 
committee  to  consider  the  matter,  and  act  as  it  seems  to  them 
just  and  proper.     I  am  not  tenacious  at  all  about  it. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Farmington.  I  think  the  article  in  the  Con- 
stitution as  it  stands  is  well  enough  ;  I  do  not  see  any  good 
reason  for  the  change.  I  do  not  see  any  particular  reason  why 
these  vacancies  should  be  filled  in  this  way.  I  think  these 
vacancies  should  be  filled  in  the  way  that  the  Constitution  now 
requires.     I  hope,  therefore,  that  the  motion  will  not  prevail. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  1 75 

Upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was  rejected. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter,  the  committee  returned  to 
the  consideration  of  Articles  9,  10,  and  11  of  Part  Second  of  the 
Constitution. 

The  proposition  of  Mr.  Piper  of  Dublin  being  before  the  com- 
mittee— 

Mr.  Berry  of  Windham.  I  introduced  a  resolution  this  morn- 
ing relative  to  this  9U1  Article. 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner.  It  occurs  to  me  that  at  the  time  we 
left  this  subject  there  was  a  proposition  under  discussion,  and 
that,  pending  the  discussion  of  that  proposition,  on  the  first  arti- 
cle presented  by  Mr.  Scott,  the  committee  rose.  It  strikes  me 
that  this  proposition — we  having  decided  to  take  them  up  in 
their  order — would  now  be  in  order. 

Mr.  Berry  of  Windham.  It  was  decided  this  morning  there 
was  nothing  before  the  committee.  I  introduced  that  resolution, 
because  last  evening  I  thought  it  an  advantage  for  the  commit- 
tee to  specify  and  confine  itself  to  one  subject  until  we  acted  upon 
it,  in  the  room  of  taking  up  one,  and  passing  over  and  taking 
up  another  ;  and  I  think  that  will  take  up  the  subject  of  which 
the  gentleman  from  Warner  speaks — the  second  or  third  article, 
I  think,  of  Mr.  Scott's. 

Mr.  Ordway.  The  vote,  as  I  recollect  it,  was,  that  we  take 
up  the  first  proposition  presented,  then  lay  it  aside  and  consider 
the  next  proposition, — and  so  through  all  that  are  presented  : 
then  go  back  and  vote  upon  them.  They  were  to  be  taken  up  ; 
if  any  one  had  anything  to  say,  they  were  to  be  discussed,  and 
then  passed  on. 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth.  I  think  the  last  thing  we  did  on 
this  proposition  was  on  the  9th  Article.  There  were  several 
more  propositions  to  amend  this  part  of  the  Constitution,  as  I 
understand  it,  that  have  not  been  before  the  committee  at  all, 
except  by  reading. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Morse  of  Portsmouth,  the  proposition  was 
laid  aside  for  the  present. 

The  proposition  of  Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord  being  before 
the  committee — 


I76  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

Mr.  Gallinger.  I  shall  have  to  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  com- 
mittee for  a  few  minutes  in  the  discussion  of  this  proposition, 
because  I  honestly  believe  it  to  be  as  fair  a  proposition,  as  hon- 
orable a  proposition,  as  could  by  any  possibility  be  presented  to 
this  committee.  For  myself,  I  am  free  to  say  that  I  believe  in 
a  material  reduction  of  this  house.  I  think  I  was  never  more 
astonished  in  my  life  than  I  was  the  other  day,  to  hear  the  dis- 
tinguished gentleman  from  Exeter  [Mr.  Marston],  and  the 
distinguished  gentleman  from  Manchester  [Mr.  Smyth],  declare 
to  this  committee  that,  in  their  judgment,  any  considerable 
reduction  was  not  advisable.  I  supposed,  before  that  time,  that 
the  people  of  this  state — the  tax-payers  of  this  state — had  settled 
it  in  their  minds  that  a  material  reduction  in  the  house  was  de- 
manded at  our  hands.  I  remember  a  few  years  ago — indeed, 
a  good  many  years  ago — of  reading  some  machine  poetry  that 
a  member  of  the  New  Hampshire  house  of  representatives  per- 
petrated. I  can  only  recollect  one  stanza  of  it.  It  ran  after 
this  wise : 

"  The  seats  are  hard,  the  backs  are  straight, 
Which  makes  it  difficult  to  legislate." 

Now,  gentlemen  of  this  committee,  I  think  we  might  turn  the 
crank  once  more,  and,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  number  of 
the  house  has  very  largely  increased  since  then,  continue  it 
thus  : 

The  seats  are  so  crowded,  and  the  members  so  close  together, 
That  it  makes  it  hard  to  legislate  in  any  kind  of  weather. 

I  believe  that  the  people  of  this  state  demand  a  reduction  of  the 
house.  I  know  that  my  own  constituency  demand  it.  I  believe  my 
colleagues  in  this  convention  will  bear  me  out  in  this  assertion, 
that  the  city  of  Concord  desires  a  reduction  of  the  house.  Now, 
gentlemen  of  the  committee,  you  will  find  by  the  People  Hand 
Book  that  the  house  consists,  at  the  present  time,  of  from  3S0 
to  393  members.  There  are  several  propositions  before  this 
committee  to  reduce  that  number.  One  is  on  the  basis  of  rata- 
ble polls  ;  and  there  has  been  an  attempt  made,  and  doubtless 
will  be  made  again,  to  define  a  ratable  poll.  I  take  it,  gentle- 
men, a  ratable  poll  is  an  unknown  quantity,  and  I  take  it  the 
committee  will  find  it  impossible  to  define  it  so  there  can  be  an 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  \yj 

honest  agreement.  We  have  heard  gentlemen  say  in  this  com- 
mittee,— the  gentleman  from  Manchester  said,  in  his  own  city 
it  was  not  very  difficult  to  get  the  number  of  ratable  polls  in- 
creased to  almost  an  unlimited  extent.  I  think  he  said'that, 
and  I  should  think,  sir,  that  would  be  very  likely.  Another 
plan  is  to  base  it  upon  the  legal  voters.  I  believe  the  gentle- 
men of  the  committee  will  agree  with  me  that  legal  voters  are 
an  unknown  quantity  likewise.  I  remember  a  fact  here  in 
Concord.  Speaking  of  a  certain  ward  in  Concord,  it  was  said, 
"Of  course  they  can  have  voters  enough,  because  all  the  grave- 
yards are  in  that  ward."  I  think  the  matter  of  who  are  le^al 
voters  is  a  very  difficult  one  to  fix.  But,  gentlemen,  there  is  a 
basis  that  is  fixed  ;  there  is  a  fact  no  man  can  gainsay  ;  no 
cheating  can  be  done — and  that  basis  is  population.  The  United 
States  census  of  1870  tells  us  precisely  what  the  population  of 
our  state  was  ;  what  the  population  of  each  town  was  ;  what 
the  population  of  each  ward  was  in  each  city.  There  is  no 
mistake  there,  gentlemen  ;  we  know  just  what  it  means. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  proposition  is  simply  this :  For 
every  Soo  inhabitants  we  are  to  have  one  representative,  for 
every  2,000  two  representatives,  every  3,500  three,  every  5,000 
four,  and  so  on  in  that  ratio  ; — and  I  believe  I  can  make  it 
appear  that  it  is  fair — fair  to  both  political  parties  ;  for,  gentle- 
men, I  am  aware  that,  if  any  proposition  passed  this  conven- 
tion that  was  not  fair  to  both  political  parties,  it  would  not 
stand  the  ghost  of  a  show  with  the  people.  For  that  reason, 
I  would  not  be  hypocrite  enough  to  stand  here  and  defend  any 
proposition  I  did  not  believe  was  fair  and  honest.  According 
to  the  census,  there  are  318,300  persons  in  the  state  ; — dividing 
it  by  393 — the  number  we  are  entitled  to  under  the  present 
system — I  find  it  gives  us  a  population  of  810  to  each  repre- 
sentative. My  proposition  is,  that  we  make  it  Soo  for  the  first 
representative.     Again  :  I  find  that  the  vote  of  last  March  was 

80,472,  and  the  vote  of  November  was  very  nearly  the  same  ; 

dividing  the  population  by  this  vote,  we  have  3.91,  an  average, 
then,  of  very  near  four  inhabitants  to  each  vote.     Now,  then 
let  us  take  this  as  the  basis:  We  have   in   the  first  place  Soo 
population,  equivalent  to  200  voters,  to  one  representative  ;  and 
then   it  seems  to  me  that  the  other  calculations  on  that  basis 

12 


178  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

are  fail'  and  equitable,  and  we  should  have  2,000  population, 
500  voters,  for  the  second  representative,  and  3,500  population, 
Sj5  voters,  for  the  third  representative.  Of  course,  certain 
towns  that  have  less  than  Soo  inhabitants  would  have  to  be 
classed  ; — the  legislature  would  attend  to  that  matter,  either 
allowing  the  classed  towns  to  send  a  representative  as  a  class, 
or  alternating  the  representation  between  the  towns,  allowing 
each  town  to  send  a  representative  such  proportion  of  the  time 
as  its  population  bears  to  the  aggregate  population  of  the  class. 
A  careful  computation, — not  made  by  myself,  but  made  by  Mr. 
George  E.  Jenks — a  man  of  skill  in  the  affairs  of  the  state, — 
says  it  would  reduce  the  house  about  126  members,  leaving  267 
members  ;  and  that  it  would  cut  off  almost  an  equal  number 
from  both  political  parties  as  they  stand  in  the  present  house.  I 
would  say  to  the  committee  that  I  have  a  list,  likewise  prepared 
by  Mr. Jenks,  showing  the  political  representation,  and  suggesting 
a  possible  classing  of  contiguous  towns  and  wards  not  having 
the  requisite  population,  and  that  list  is  open  for  the  inspection 
of  any  gentleman  who  feels  any  interest  in  this  matter.  I  be- 
lieve, in  brief,  this  proposition  is  fair,  is  equitable  :  it  is  not  going 
to  deprive  any  political  party  of  its  rights,  and  it  is  going  to  make 
a  reduction  in  this  house  that  I  believe  the  people  will  accept. 
Two  hundred  and  sixty-seven  members  is  a  strong  house  ;  and 
inasmuch  as  this  basis  is  unchangeable — something  every  board 
of  selectmen  can  understand — every  town  can  see  at  a  glance 
what  the  town  is  entitled  to  in  the  way  of  representation — I 
suggest  that  it  is  a  proposition  which  ought  to  receive  the 
serious  consideration  of  this  committee  before  being  rejected. 
The  United  States  census  is  taken  once  every  ten  years.  Of 
course,  if  the  state  should  so  decide,  a  census  could  be  taken 
oftener — say  once  in  a  semi-decade.  So,  for  five  years  at 
least,  our  basis  of  representation  would  be  fixed  and  unchange- 
able ;  it  would  be  a  fair  basis,  and  there  could  be  no  equivoca- 
tion or  subterfuge  in  regard  to  the  representation,  and  we 
would  not  have  any  members,  without  a  constituency,  claiming 
seats  in  the  house,  as  we  have  had  in  times  past.  Gentlemen 
would  come  here  with  their  rights  as  well  defined  as  in  the 
British  House  of  Parliament.  I  trust,  gentlemen,  the  propo- 
sition will  receive  your  careful  consideration,  and,  if  so,  what- 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I  79 

ever  disposition  is  made  of  it  will  satisfy  me.  Of  course, 
expressing  myself  in  favor  of  it  as  I  do,  I  hope  it  will  receive 
your  approval. 

[The  table  referred  to  by  Mr.  Gallinger,  showing  the  average 
population  for  representatives  in  the  several  counties,  according 
to  his  scheme,  was  as  follows:  Rockingham,  1,191  ;  Strafford, 
1,321;  Belknap,  1,321;  Carroll,  i,2oS;  Merrimack,  1,172; 
Hillsborough,  1,302;  Cheshire,  1,155;  Sullivan,  1,158;  Graf- 
ton, 1,180;  Coos,  823.] 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  what  he  proposes  doing 
with  towns  of  less  than  800  inhabitants? 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill.  Pardon  me  if  I  inquire  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Concord  how  many  towns  there  will  be  that  will 
have  to  be  classed — that  is,  that  have  less  than  S00  inhabitants? 

Mr.  Gallinger.  I  will  reply  to  Mr.  Page  first.  I  will  say, 
I  believe  there  are  between  eighty  and  ninety  that  will  have  to 
be  classed,  making  some  thirty  or  forty  districts.  In  answer  to 
the  gentleman  from  Dover,  I  will  say  that  this  scheme  contem- 
plates the  classing  of  contiguous  small  towns  ;  and  I  have  a 
schedule  showing  that  almost  every  one  of  these  small  towns 
can  be  so  classed  ; — but  that,  I  think,  can  be  arranged  satis- 
factorily by  the  legislature.  As  before  suggested,  the  legisla- 
ture could  enact,  if  they  saw  fit,  that  each  classed  town  could 
send  a  representative  alternately,  or  as  many  years  as  they 
are  entitled  to  by  this  basis  of  800  inhabitants. 

Mr.  Murray  of  Canaan.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  substantial 
reduction  of  the  house  of  representatives.  I  believe  that 
my  constituents  desire  that,  and  they  will  not  be  satisfied  un- 
less something  is  done  here  to  reduce  the  house  somewhat. 
Now,  in  looking  over  this  paper  that  has  been  furnished 
us,  I  find  that  there  are  85  towns  that  have  got  to  be  classed. 
Well,  now,  query,  whether,  if  we  should  adopt  the  theory 
of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  we  should  not,  to  begin 
with,  array  these  85  towns  against  this  proposition,  because 
they  will  not  know  where  they  are  going,  who  they  are  going 
to  be  classed  with,  or  how  their  political  complexion  is  going 


l80  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

to  be  changed.  I  am  fearful,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  shall 
have  the  united  opposition  of  the  85  towns  that  are  going  to  be 
classed,  to  start  with  ;  and  it  will  be  very  doubtful  whether  we 
could  carry  the  proposition  through  to  reduce  this  house,  with 
85  towns  against  us  to  begin  with.  Now,  as  I  said  before,  I  am 
in  favor  of  a  reduction.  I  am  willing  to  reduce  the  house  to 
200,  and  I  am  not  sure  but  what  the  proposition  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr.  Sargent]  is  the  best  we  can 
adopt, — that  is,  to  establish  one  hundred  representative  districts 
in  this  state.  It  seems  to  me  that  with  one  hundred  represent- 
ative districts,  this  gerrymandering  that  has  been  so  much 
talked  about  could  be  remedied.  I  do  not  know  how  we  could 
do  this  if  we  united  contiguous  towns.  I  don't  know  how  we 
could  gerrymander  so  as  to  affect  the  matter  very  much,  one 
way  or  another.  I  am  in  hopes  that  this  committee  will  adopt 
some  rule,  some  system,  that  will  substantially  reduce  the  house. 
I  would  be  glad  to  reduce  it  200,  but  I  am  fearful,  if  we  adopt 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr.  Gallinger], 
that  we  shall  have  the  85  towns  I  spoke  of  arrayed  against  us 
from  the  start. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill.  I  desire  simply  to  suggest,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  motion  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr. 
Gallinger],  that  I  agree  fully  in  the  basis  that  he  proposes.  I 
believe  that  the  only  basis  safe  to  be  taken  in  this  committee  is 
the  basis  of  population — that  is,  a  fixed,  a  determinate  quantity 
— not  a  determinable  quantity,  but  a  quantity  that  cannot  be 
modified  by  politicians  ;  a  quantity  not  subject  to  the  pleasure 
of  selectmen,  but  one  fixed  and  absolute.  On  this  basis  I  offered 
my  resolution  ; — we  only  differ  as  to  where  we  are  willing  to  be- 
gin. I  do  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Canaan  [Mr. Murray] 
that  the  figures  upon  which  the  gentleman  starts  are  too 
large.  As  he  suggested,  there  are  between  eighty  and  ninety — 
my  friend  makes  eighty-five  in  his  estimate,  I  make  ninety — 
that  would  be  classed  upon  his  proposition.  Upon  the  propo- 
sition that  I  have  submitted,  there  would  be  but  fifty-eight  towns 
classed.  To  be  sure,  there  will  be  some  fault  found  by  these 
small  towns — it  is  their  misfortune  ;  but,  as  a  body,  the  towns 
of  this  state  will  stand  in  the  new  Constitution,  amended  as  I 
suggest,  precisely  as  they  stand  to-day,  as  a  body ;  there  will 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  l8l 

be  simply  exceptional  cases.  Now  this  classification  of  the 
towns  of  the  state  is  an  extremely  difficult  matter.  The  towns 
are  not  all  contiguous  that  ought  to  be  classed  together,  and 
they  are  all  jealous  of  interference  with  their  right  to  be  repre- 
sented in  our  legislature,  as  the  gentleman  from  Canaan  has 
suggested;  and  it  will  be  difficult  to  obtain  their  votes  to  any 
proposition  that  is  to  reduce  the  number  of  their  representatives 
in  the  house,  or  to  take  them  and  class  them  with  other  towns. 
Upon  the  proposition  offered  by  one,  less  than  twenty  towns  are 
to  be  classed  ;  in  another  project  that  is  offered,  forty  towns  are 
classed  ;  on  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Warner,  six- 
ty-five ;  on  this,  ninety  ;  and  in  another  that  was  presented,  fifty 
are  classed.  I  submit,  gentlemen,  that  that  by  itself  is  a  suffi- 
cient argument  for  the  proposition.  And  I  desire  to  state,  for 
the  consideration  of  the  members  of  this  committee,  that  out  of 
thirty-eight  states,  thirty  have  the  popular  representation,  in 
what  is  called  the  popular  branch,  and  which  is  supposed  to 
represent  the  people,  upon  their  inhabitants.  Exceptions  exist : 
for  instance,  in  three  of  the  Southern  states  it  is  based  on 
legal  voters. 

In  the  state  of  Vermont  their  manner  is  peculiar,  as  several 
gentlemen  on  this  floor  understand.  In  the  state  of  Massachu- 
setts they  vote  substantially  as  we  do  here — on  the  basis  of 
ratable  polls — but  determine  the  number  of  ratable  polls  in  a 
different  manner  than  any  I  have  heard  suggested  ;  but  the  fact 
is,  in  three  fourths  of  the  United  States  the  rule  for  determining 
the  representatives  is  based  on  the  men,  in  the  first  instance — 
the  tax-payers.  The  popular  branch  is  the  branch  of  the  peo- 
ple— in  fact,  represents  its  inhabitants  ;  and  it  seems  to  me  that 
no  other  basis  of  representation  is  safe,  no  other  basis  is  sure, 
and  no  other  basis  is  consistent  with  popular  principle  and 
popular  representation.  One  gentlemen  suggests,  '-Would  you 
have  the  women  of  Manchester  represented?"  I  reply,  I  would 
have  every  person  represented  in  this  state  that  pays  taxes,  or 
shares  the  burdens  of  this  government;  every  person  subject  to 
the  laws  of  this  state  ;  every  person  who,  for  his  advantage,  or 
for  his  disadvantage,  is  allowed  the  privileges  of,  or  is  subject 
to  the  penalties  of,  the  laws  of  this  state.  The  right  of  repre- 
sentation is  one  thing,  and  the  right  to  vote  is  another ;  and 


1 82  JOURNAL   OF  THE 

eveiy  person  in  this  state — man,  woman,  01*  child — all  citizens, 
are  entitled  to  their  share  of  representation  through  some  per- 
son on  the  floor  of  this  house.  And  that  principle,  sir,  as  I 
suggested,  is  acknowledged  in  the  government  of  our  country; 
that  principle  is  acknowledged  in  the  government  of  three 
fourths  of  the  states  ;  and  if  any  change  is  to  be  made  here,  that 
principle  should  be  incoi'porated  in  our  Constitution.  Again : 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  and  to  be  shown  to  persons  by  figures, 
the  provision,  taking  the  representation  of  the  city  of  Manches- 
ter on  the  basis  of  ratable  polls,  is  larger  than  they  would  have 
on  a  basis  of  population,  were  that  to  be  substituted  for  it. 
They  have  a  percentage  of  ratable  polls  compared  to  actual 
population — by  the  census  taken  in  1S70 — of  as  much  as  one  in 
three,  and  there  would  be  but  three  towns  that  have  a  larger 
proportion  :  and  bear  in  mind  they  are  towns,  not  cities.  .  This 
is  supposing  that  all  our  political  affairs  are  honestly  conducted. 
It  is  very  convenient,  as  gentlemen  here  have  suggested,  to  put 
names  on  the  back  of  the  list  if  the  basis  of  representation  is  the 
ratable  polls.  Make  your  legal  voters  the  basis,  and  what  then  ? 
The  names  on  the  back  are  simply  transferred  and  put  on  its 
face.  The  gentlemen  who  desire  to  secure  an  additional  repre- 
sentative ;  who  desire  mere  local  power — mere  partisan  power  ; 
those  gentlemen  who  are  unscrupulous  enough  to  put  on  the 
back  of  the  list  names  that  do  not  belong  there,  would  not  hes- 
itate to  put  men's  names  on  their  list,  or  to  resurrect  graveyards 
to  swell  the  number.  There  is  no  limit,  and  there  is  no  basis  to 
which  gentlemen  can  bring  themselves  for  saving  the  people, 
for  the  honor  of  this  state,  for  the  honor  of  its  politics,  except 
that  fixed  basis  that  can  neither  be  changed  nor  affected  by  the 
officers  of  the  town,  or  men  who  would  come  here  for  political 
purposes  ;  a  basis  determined  by  gentlemen  who  are  outside  of 
local  politics,  and  who  fix  it  outside  of  all  power  of  change — 
the  basis  of  population.  Again  :  another  gentleman  has  sug- 
gested that  ten  or  five  years  is  too  long  to  wait ;  that  the 
population  may  largely  increase  during  that  time. 

Of  those  states  that  are  represented  on  this  popular  basis, 
out  of  twenty-eight,  twenty-five  take  their  census  but  once  in  ten 
years  ;  it  is  taken  decennially  in  each  case — sometimes  correl- 
atively   with  the    national   census,    sometimes   determined   in 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  I  83 

another  year — taken  in  1S65,  for  example,  or  in  1S75.  That  is 
frequent  enough.  Then,  sir,  every  town  in  this  state  knows 
just  how  many  representatives  it  is  entitled  to,  or  that  any  other 
town  in  the  state  is  entitled  to.  It  knows  it  cannot  be  defrauded. 
The  towns  of  Bartlett,  Londonderry,  and  Hart's  Location  have 
no  incentive  to  perpetrate  frauds  to  counteract  frauds  that  may 
be  attempted  by  some  other  towns.  It  is  determined  and 
fixed,  for  every  town  knows  then  how  many  representatives  its 
neighbor  is  entitled  to,  and  it  has  no  incentive  to  commit  fraud, 
but  knows  it  must  do  just  exactly  what  is  right  and  what  the 
law  compels.  I  submit  that  the  basis  suggested — the  basis  of 
population — advocated  by  my  friend  from  Concord  [Mr.  Gal- 
linger],  and  supported  by  myself,  is  the  only  honest,  safe,  and 
fair  basis  that  can  be  established  by  parties  in  view  of  the  pol- 
itics of  this  state  ;  the  only  basis  that  cannot  and  will  not  be 
made  subservient  to  fraud,  and  conveniently  changed  outside  of 
this  convention,  by  those  men  who  desire  to  make  the  means 
subservient  to  their  ends.  Now,  sir,  I  have  simply  one  sugges- 
tion further  to  add  :  I  wish  to  repeat  what  I  said  at  the  outset 
with  regard  to  this  ratio  of  representation.  A  portion  of  this 
loss  must  fall  everywhere.  No  city  or  town  can  hope,  if  the 
house  be  reduced,  to  hold  up  to  its  present  representation. 
There  must  be  some  sacrifice  somewhere  ;  and  when  Mr.  Smyth 
of  Manchester  said  that  he  did  not  propose  to  deprive  these 
small  towns  of  their  representation,  is  he  willing  that  the  city 
of  Manchester  should  make  the  sacrifice  the  people  demand 
out  of  its  representation?  Somebody  must  do  it.  There  must 
be  concession — political  sacrifice  ;  there  must  be  a  yielding  of 
political  power  offered  on  the  part  of  cities  and  towns.  I  know 
it  is  useless  to  talk  about  the  amendment  prevailing  here  and 
before  the  people,  unless  it  is  about  right  to  each  town  ;  and  I 
will  ask  you,  Is  it  not  as  unreasonable  for  us  to  pass  an  amend- 
ment here  that  will  not  reduce  each  town  and  city  fairly,  as  it 
would  be  if  I  should  tap  a  man  on  the  shoulder,  and  say, — 
"  Look  here  !  that  proposition  of  ours  is  to  help  the  other  polit- 
ical party, — will  you  vote  for  it?"  The  people  will  ask  you, 
they  will  ask  me,  how  this  amendment  will  affect  their  town. 
The  reduction  proposed  on  my  amendment  is  130  representa- 
tives.    A  careful  comparison  has  been  made  by  a  gentleman 


1 84  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

who  has  given  to  it  a  good  deal  of  study,  and  the  result  is,  with 
many  of  the  doubtful  towns  going  democratic  instead  of  all 
republican  as  they  went  last  spring,  the  ratio  would  be  very 
large  ;  but,  either  way,  it  is  a  fair  and  honorable  matter,  so  far 
as  the  political  parties  are  concerned  ;  and  I  think  that  any  man, 
whether  democrat  or  republican,  can  safely  go  before  the  peo- 
ple, and  say  it  is  a  fair  proposition  so  far.  Then,  too,  the  rest 
of  my  proposition  protects  the  integrity  of  the  small  towns ; 
and  taking  the  cities,  there  would  be  cut  off  ten  representa- 
tives to  which  the  large  cities  would  not  be  entitled  ;  but,  in 
the  manner  of  warding,  they  would  not  suffer  any  more  loss 
than  the  rest  of  the  state.  Gentlemen  say,  "  You  are  mistaken  ; 
how  can  you  prove  it?"  It  is  a  matter  of  mathematics.  In 
the  city  of  Manchester  there  is  a  certain  number  of  ratable 
polls,  sending  thirty-two  representatives ;  they  are  entitled,  if 
voting  on  a  general  ticket,  to  send  twenty-eight :  they  have  four 
more.  The  same  thing  prevails  in  other  cities  of  the  state, 
and  they  must  submit — as  patriotic  men,  they  are,  I  believe, 
willing  to  submit — not  merely  to  the  reduction  of  this  artificial 
representation,  but  they  are  willing  to  take  a  fair  reduction 
upon  their  representation  here.  Sir,  there  are  various  sugges- 
tions I  might  make  here  :  I  do  not  desire  to  make  them  all.  I 
wanted  to  make  some  remarks  in  regard  to  the  matter ;  and  if 
there  are  any  objections  to  the  propositions  I  have  advanced, 
I  shall  be  glad  to  have  any  member  here  make  any  inquiries, 
or  to  have  them  reply  to  these  suggestions. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  I  desire  simply  to  propound  a  question  to  my 
friend  [Mr.  Page]  from  Haverhill  ;  he  propounded  one  to  me, 
and  I  wish  to  propound  one  to  him.  I  understand  him  to  say, 
that  the  amendment  offered  by  me  would  cut  off  some  ninety 
small  towns,  and  that  they  would  therefore  vote  against  it. 

Mr.  Page.  The  loss  falls  principally  on  the  large  towns  and 
cities.  As  I  suggested  before,  there  are  ten  to  begin  with  which 
are  entirely  artificial,  that  will  be  thrown  out.  In  addition  to 
that,  the  loss  substantially  falls  upon  the  large  towns  and  cities. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  My  further  remark  is  simply  this :  If,  as 
the  gentleman  from  Canaan  [Mr.  Murray]  suggested,  and  the 
gentleman  from  Haverhill  [Mr.  Page]  repeated,  the  danger  to 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I  85 

the  amendment  comes  from  some  eighty  or  ninety  small  towns 
that  are  affected  by  it,  is  there  not  danger  of  his  motion  fail- 
ing that  strikes  all  the  rest  of  the  state? 

Mr.  Page.  I  judge  not.  I  am  taking  the  expressions  of  the 
gentlemen  here  who  represent  these  large  cities  :  I  am  taking 
their  expressions  here  as  an  earnest  of  what  they  will  do  when 
they  go  home. 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth  introduced  the  following  amend- 
ment : 

Strike  out  Articles  9, 10,  and  11,  of  Part  Second,  and  substitute 
therefor  the  following;  "There  shall  be  in  the  legislature  of 
this  state  a  representation  of  the  people,  elected  biennially,  and 
founded  on  the  principles  of  equality  :  every  town  or  place  en- 
titled to  town  privileges,  having  one  hundred  and  fifty  legal 
voters,  of  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  upwards,  who  shall  have 
resided  in  this  state  six  months  or  more  immediately  preceding 
the  election,  may  elect  one  representative  ;  if  seven  hundred  and 
fifty,  may  elect  two  representatives  ;  if  fifteen  hundred  and  fifty, 
may  elect  three  representatives  ;  if  twenty-five  hundred  and  fifty, 
may  elect  four  representatives  ;  and  so  proceeding,  making  one 
thousand  such  legal  voters  the  mean  increasing  number  for  every 
such  additional  representative  after  the  third.  Such  towns  or 
places  as  have  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  legal  voters  may 
elect  a  representative  such  proportion  of  the  time  as  the  num- 
ber of  their  legal  voters  shall  bear  to  one  hundred  and  fifty : 
Provided,  that  such  towns  and  places  as  shall  not  have  one 
hundred  and  fifty  legal  voters,  and  shall  be  conveniently  located 
for  that  object,  on  application  to  the  legislature,  may  be  classed 
for  the  choice  of  representative — such  classed  towns  not  to  con- 
tain less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  legal  voters  in  such  repre- 
sentative district  so  formed ;  and  provided  further,  that  all 
towns,  cities,  or  places,  which  now  are  or  hereafter  may  be  di- 
vided into  sections  or  wards  for  the  choice  of  representatives, 
shall,  for  the  purpose  of  apportioning  the  number  of  represent- 
atives to  the  number  of  legal  voters,  be  considered  as  undivided  ; 
and  provided  further,  that  such  towns  and  places  as  have  less 
than  one  hundred  and  fifty  legal  voters,  and  are  entitled  to  rep- 
resentation a  portion  of  the  time,  under  this  amendment  of  the 


I 86  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

Constitution,  shall  have  the  right  to  elect  a  representative  at  the 
first  election  under  this  amendment,  and  so  consecutively  for 
the  proportion  in  a  given  number  of  elections." 

The  committee  having  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  prop- 
osition of  Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord — 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Canterbury.  I  would  like  to  offer  an  amend- 
ment to  the  motion  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord 
[Mr.  Gallinger],  to  substitute  six  hundred  in  the  place  of  eight 
hundred  as  the  basis  of  the  first  representative  to  which  towns 
will  be  entitled.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems  to  me,  from  the  views 
that  have  been  expressed  here  in  opposition  to  this  motion,  that 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord  cuts  off  too 
many  small  towns.  The  opposition  that  is  raised  here  to  the 
motion  or  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Haverhill 
is,  that  he  does  not  cut  off  enough.  By  the  amendment  that  I 
have  just  offered,  forty-five  towns  would  lose  their  representa- 
tive and  be  classed  in  with  those  towns  that  are  classed  at 
present.  I  come  from  one  of  the  towns  that  will  not  be  affected 
by  any  proposition  offered  here  by  any  gentleman,  except,  it 
may  be,  the  district  system.  The  only  difficulty  it  seems  in  this 
matter  is,  to  have  some  amendment  adopted  that  will  meet  the 
acceptance  of  the  people  after  adjournment.  The  motion  of- 
fered by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  even  as  amended  as  I 
propose,  is  not  my  own  favorite  theory,  but  if  we  are  to  com- 
promise in  this  matter,  as  I  believe  we  must,  I  am  willing  to 
favor  the  proposition  as  amended  ;  for,  if  we  continue  to  hold 
our  individual  views,  we  can  sit  here  this  week,  and  another, 
and  then  come  to  no  conclusion. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth,  the  proposition  of 
Mr.  Gallinger,  with  amendment  thereto,  was  laid  aside  for  the 
present. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Quarles  of  Ossipee, 

Ordered^  That  the  committee  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask 
leave  to  sit  again. 

IN    CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 
Mr.  Frink,  chairman,  reported  that  the   committee  of  the 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  1 87 

whole  had  had  under  consideration  so  much  of  Part  Second  of 
the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  legislative  department,  with- 
out concluding,  and  asked  leave  to  sit  again. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth,  the  convention  ad- 
journed. 


THURSDAY,  December   14,  1S76. 

The  convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  president  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  Mr.  Blake  of  Concord. 

The  journal  was  read  and  approved. 

Mr.  Farr  of  Littleton  introduced  the  following  amendment: 

To  Article  9.  Strike  out  all  of  said  article  after  the  words 
"town  privileges"  in  the  fifth  line  of  said  article,  and  insert 
"six  hundred  inhabitants,  as  shown  by  the  next  preceding 
United  States  census,  may  elect  one  representative  ;  if  eighteen 
hundred  inhabitants,  two  representatives  ;  and  so  proceeding  in 
that  proportion,  making  twelve  hundred  inhabitants  the  mean 
increasing  number  for  every  additional  representative." 

And  the  same  was  ordered  to  lie  upon  the  table  until  that 
subject  was  before  the  convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gilman  of  Nashua,  the  following  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  it  is  desirable  for  New  Hampshire  to  adopt 
a  state  motto  ;  and  we  therefore  recommend  the  adoption  of  the 
following  sentiment,  uttered  by  one  of  her  most  honored  sons, 
as  the  motto  of  this  state, — "  Liberty  and  Union,  now  and  for- 
ever, one  and  inseparable," — and  that  it  be  incorporated  into 
the  seal  of  the  state. 

Mr.  M.  C.  Burleigh  of  Somersworth  introduced  the  following, 
which  was  ordered  to  lie  upon  the  table  until  the  appropriate 
subject  was  before  the  convention  : 

Amend  Article  9  by  striking  out  all  after  the  word  "  privi- 


I 88  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

leges,"  and  inserting  "  shall  have  representatives  apportioned 
among  them  according  to  their  population,  and  the  number  of 
representatives  shall  be  fixed  at  three  hundred." 

Mr.  Badger  of  Concord  introduced  the  following,  which  was 
ordered  to  lie  upon  the  table  until  the  appropriate  subject  was 
before  the  convention. 

Amend  by  striking  out  Articles  9,  10,  and  11,  and  inserting 
therefor  the  following  words:   "The  house  of  representatives 

shall  consist  of  not  less  than ,  nor  more  than members, 

chosen  by  the  cities,  towns,  and  places  entitled  to  town  repre- 
sentation, according  to  population  as  shown  by  the  decennial 
census  of  the  United  States,  as  follows  :  The  whole  population 
of  the  state  to  be  divided  by  the  maximum  number  of  represent- 
atives ;  and  the  quotient  arising,  by  dividing  the  population  of 
any  city,  town,  or  place  by  the  first  resulting  quotient,  shall  de- 
termine the  number  of  representatives  to  which  any  city,  town, 
or  place  may  be  entitled  :  Provided,  however,  that  all  cities, 
towns,  and  places,  which  cannot  be  represented  by  this  process, 
shall  be  entitled  to  representation  such  a  proportion  of  the  time 
as  their  respective  populations  bear  to  the  first  resulting  quo- 
tient ;  provided,  however,  that  every  city,  town,  and  place, 
however  small  its  population,  shall  be  entitled  to  representation 
each  year  when  a  new  apportionment  of  the  state  tax  is 
made." 

The  following  resolution,  introduced  by  Mr.  Guppy  of  Dover, 
was  rejected  : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee,  to  consist  of  ten  members  that 
have  offered  propositions  for  the  reduction  of  the  number  of 
representatives,  with  ten  members  that  have  not  o  fie  red  propo- 
sitions, be  appointed  by  the  president,  to  prepare  and  present 
some  plan  for  the  consideration  of  this  convention  for  the  reduc- 
tion of  the  house  ;  and  that  they  have  one  hour  to  prepare  and 
report. 

Mr.  Gustine  of  Keene,  for  the  committee  to  whom  was  re- 
ferred the  duty  of  fixing  the  mileage  of  the  members  of  the 
convention,  rej^orted  the  following  resolution,  which  was 
adopted  : 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  I  89 

Resolved,  That  each  member  be  allowed  the  number  of 
miles  travel  set  opposite  his  name  in  the  following  list,  and 
that  the  secretary  be  instructed  to  make  up  the  mileage  roll 
of  the  convention  in  accordance  therewith  : 

ROCKINGHAM   COUNTY. 

Atkinson Greenleaf  Clarke 108 

Auburn Charles  C.  Grant 64 

Brentwood William  Morrill 88 

Chester William  Greenough 56 

Candia Plummer  W.  Sanborn 56 

Levi  Bean 56 

Danville David  Griffin 116 

Derry William  W.  Poor 56 

Rufus  Tilton 56 

Deerfield Samuel  C.  Danforth 66 

Robert  C.  Bickford 66 

East  Kingston John  B.  Morrill 134 

Epping Thomas  Folsom 74 

David  Edgerly 74 

Exeter John  J.  Bell 140 

William  W.  Stickney 140 

William  B.  Morrill . .' 140 

Gilman  Marston 140 

Fremont . . . , George  L.  Sanborn 96 

Greenland John  S.  H.  Frink 100 

Hampstead Albert  L.  Eastman 76 

Hampton Joseph  Dow 132 

Hampton  Falls Nehemiah  P.  Cram 144 

Kensington Jonathan  E.  Brown 116 

Kingston John  B.  Hanson 92 

Londonderry Alexander  M.  Corning 48 

John  Dickey 56 

Newmarket John  J.  Robinson 104 

Charles  H.  Smith 104 

Newcastle William  A.  Maloon 122 

Newington Nehemiah  Pickering no 

Newton Edward  P.  Wallace 134 

North  Hampton David  P.  Moulton 126 

Nottingham Charles  H.  Batchelder 60 

Northwood John  B.  Clarke 50 

Plaistow Nathaniel  H.  Clark 112 

Portsmouth — Ward    1 Ichabod  Goodwin 112 

James  W.  Emery 112 

William  H.  Y.  Hackett 112 

Ward  2 Titus  Salter  Tredick 112 

William  H.  Hackett 112 

Alfred  Y .  Howard 112 

Joseph  P.  Morse 112 

Ward   3 Israel   Marden 112 

Ward  4 Daniel  Marcy. .  t 112 

Henry  F.  Wendell 112 


190  JOURNAL   OF    THE 

Raymond John  F.  Brown 75 

Rye David  Jenness 128 

Salem Joseph  Webster 80 

Levi  Clough.  . , 80 

Sandown Ebenezer  Hoyt,  2d 74 

South  Hampton Joseph  J.  J.  Sawyer 132 

South  Newmarket Amos  Paul 100 

Stratham Charles  N.  Healey 100 

Windham Horace  Berry 65 

STRAFFORD   COUNTY. 

Dover — Ward  1 John  H.  Laighton 120 

Asa  S.  Baker 120 

Ward  2 William  S.  Stevens 120 

Joseph  D.  Guppy 120 

John  B.  Bruce 120 

Ward  3 Samuel  M.  Wheeler 120 

Zimri  S.  Wallingford 120 

Charles  H.  Horton 120 

Ward  4 George  B.  Spaulding 120 

John^E.  Bickford 120 

John  Clements 130 

Durham Joshua  B.  Smith 100 

Farniington George  N.  Eastman 160 

Jeremy  O.  Nute 160 

John  I.  Huckins 160 

Lee Seth  W.  Woodman no 

Madbury Charles  R.  Meserve 100 

Middleton Cyrus  B.  Perkins 182 

Milton J  oseph  Plummer 1 66 

Elbridge  W.  Fox 180 

New  Durham Eben  E.  Berry 170 

Rochester Nicholas  V.  Whitehouse  . . .  140 

Ebenezer  G.  Wallace 140 

James  H.  Edgerly 138 

Franklin  McDuffee 138 

Charles  E.  Jenkins 146 

Rollinsford John  O.  A.  Wentworth 130 

Somersworth George  Wm.  Burleigh 130 

Otis  B.  Morse 134 

Thomas  G.  Jameson 130 

Micajah  C.  Burleigh 130 

True  Wm.  Woodman 134 

Strafford Aaron  W.  Foss 78 

Jacob  B.  Smith 150 

BELKNAP   COUNTY. 

Alton Amos  L.  Rollins 180 

Lafayette  Woodman 182 

Barnstead Samuel  A.  Hodgdon 64 

Charles  S.  George 56 

Center  Harbor Alonzo  Perkins 88 

Gilford • < Orastus  H.  Key 60 

Benjamin  J.  Cole 60 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I9I 

Gilford Thomas  Weeks 60 

Gilmanton Charles  F.  Sargent 60 

Henry  E.  Marsh 65 

Laconia Thomas  J.  Whipple 52 

Nelson  Richardson 52 

Jonathan  G.  Dow 68 

Meredith Bradbury  C.  Tuttle 78 

Thaddeus  S.  Moses 78 

New  Hampton George  H.  Dickerman 76 

Sanbornton Person  C.  Shaw 52 

Tilton Bradbury  T.  Brown 38 

CARROLL    COUNTY. 

Albany ., Hiram  Mason 290 

Bartlett George  W.  M.  Pitman 300 

Frank  George 300 

Brookfield Dudley  C.  Colman 186 

Chatham Osborn  Anderson 310 

Conway Hiram  C.  Abbott 250 

Jeremiah  A.  Farrington 250 

Eaton Benjamin  F.  Wakefield 290 

Effingham John  V.  Granville 200 

Freedom Stephen  Danforth 210 

Hart's  Location John  O.  Cobb 204 

Jackson Abial  L.  Eastman 320 

Madison James  J.  Merrow 240 

Moultonborough William  H.  H.  Mason 100 

Ossipee Sanborn  B.  Carter 190 

Samuel  D.  Ouarles 190 

Sandwich John  H.  Plummer 100 

Paul  Wentworth 100 

Tamworth Nathaniel  Hubbard 220 

Tuftonborough Marquis  DeL.  McDuftee 216 

Wakefield John  W.  Sanborn 170 

Wolfeborough Jethro  R.  Furber 206 

Thomas  L.  Whitton 196 

MERRIMACK    COUNTY. 

Allenstown John  Perkins,  Jr 32 

Andover John  M.  Shirley 59 

Henry  M.  Bosworth 50 

Boscawen Isaac  K.  Gage 16 

Bow Andrew  Gault 10 

Bradford John  W.  Morse 56 

Canterbury James  O.  Lyford 30 

Chichester Edward  Langmaid 30 

Concord — Ward  1 John  S.  Brown 14 

Daniel  W.  Fox 12 

Ward  2 John  L.  Tallant 10 

Ward  3 Abijah  Hollis 6 

Ward  4 Ai  15.  Thompson 2 

Jacob  H.  Gallinger 2 

Benjamin  E.  Badger 2 


192  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

Concord — Ward  5 Jonathan  E.  Sargent 2 

John  Kimball 2 

William  E.  Chandler 

Ward  6 Joseph  Wentworth 2 

Benjamin  A.  Kimball 2 

Lewis  Downing 2 

Ward  7 William  W.  Critchett 4 

Isaac  W.  Hammond 2 

Epsom Paran  Philbrick 28 

Franklin Isaac  N.  Blodgett 36 

David  Gilchrist 38 

Edward  B.  S.  Sanborn 36 

Henniker Oliver  H.  Noyes 40 

Hill Isaac  T.  Parker 50 

Hooksett William  F.  Head 18 

Hopkinton John  F.  Jones 24 

John  M.  Harvey 28 

Loudon Jeremiah  Blake 24 

Harris  E.  Morse 24 

Newbury Sprague  A.  Morse 60 

New  London Daniel  E.  Colby 80 

Northfield Warren  H.  Smith 40 

Pembroke Aaron  Whittemore 12 

Trueworthy  L.  Fowler 12 

Pittsfield Charles  T.  B.  Knowlton 50 

Henry  L.  Robinson 46 

Salisbury Nathaniel  Bean 32 

Warner Nehemiah  G.  Ordway 40 

William  H.  Walker 36 

Webster Edward  Buxton 48 

Wilmot William  W.  Flanders 68 

HILLSBOROUGH   COUNTY. 

Amherst J.  G.  Davis 92 

Antrim Nathan  C.  Jameson 64 

Bedford Charles  H.  Kendall 50 

Bennington Henry  J.  Burtt 60 

Brookline Joseph  A.  Hall 96 

Deering Freeman  Dow 58 

Francestown Garvin  S.  Sleeper 80 

Goffstown Alfred  Poor 48 

Jabez  B.  Pattee 56 

Greenfield David  Starrett 124 

Greenville James  L.  Chamberlain 160 

Hancock John  H.  Felch 132 

Hillsborough Cornelius  Cooledge 64 

Brooks  K.  Webber 50 

Hollis John  Woods 84 

Hudson Dana  Sargent 74 

Litchfield Samuel  Chase 60 

Manchester — Ward  r George  C.  Gilmore 36 

John  W.  Severance 36 

Albert  Maxfield 36 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  1 93 

Manchester — Ward  2 Frederick  Smyth 36 

Arthur  AI.  Eastman 36 

Ward  3 Daniel  Clark 34 

James  F.  Briggs 36 

Charles  H.  Bartlett 36 

Hiram  K.  Slayton 36 

Charles  E.  Balch 

Ward  4 Nathan  Parker 36 

Bradbury  P.  Cilley 36 

Waterman  Smith 36 

Thomas  C.  Cheney 36 

Ward  5 Samuel  P.  Jackson 34 

Patrick  A.  Devine 36 

James  Sullivan 36 

Thomas  Connolly 36 

Charles  A.  O'Connor 36 

William  F.  Byrnes 34 

Ward  6 John  P.  Moore 40 

George  Holbrook 36 

Jonathan  Y.  McQuesten. .. .  36 

Ward  7 Marshall  P.  Hall 36 

Joseph  W.  Bean 36 

Ward  8 Allen  N.  Clapp 36 

Charles  K.  Walker 36 

Merrimack Ward  Parker 60 

Milford Isaac  P.  Abbott 96 

Charles  F.  Fiske 96 

Joseph  Crosby 96 

Mont  Vernon Charles  J.  Smith 102 

Nashua — Ward  1 George  A.  Ramsdell 72 

Ward  2 John  G.  Kimball 72 

Ward  3 Abi  A.  Saunders 72 

Ward  4 Edward  Spalding 72 

Ward  5 Ross  C.  Duffy 72 

Ward  6 John  Tilton 72 

Cornelius  V.  Dearborn 72 

Henry  Parkinson 72 

Ward  7 J.  P.  S.  Otterson 72 

Horace  W.  Gilman 72 

Ward  8 Jonathan  Smothers 80 

New  Boston Henry  Hutchinson 60 

New  Ipswich Henry  O.  Preston 166 

Pelham F.  AI.  Woodbury 112 

Peterborough Albert  S.  Scott 136 

Ezra  AI.  Smith 136 

Sharon Derostus  P.  Emory 204 

Temple William  P.  Bacon 156 

Weare Alonzo  H.  Wood 72 

Oliver  D.  Sawyer 72 

Wilton George  S.  Neville 102 

William  A.  Jones 102 

Windsor Francis  G.  Dresser 66 


13 


194  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

CHESHIRE   COUNTY. 

Alstead Cyrus  K.  Vilas 120 

Chesterfield Jay  Jackson 224 

Dublin Henry  C.  Piper 146 

Fitzwilliam John  M.  Parker 180 

Gilsum Daniel  W.  Bill 234 

Harrisville Samuel  D.  Bemis 230 

Hinsdale Charles  J .  Amidon 264 

Henry  M.  Jones 260 

Jaffrey Benjamin  Pierce 200 

Keene — Ward  1 Edward  Gustine 220 

Silas  Hardy 220 

Ward  2 Thomas  E.  Hatch 220 

Ward  3 Elbridge  Clarke 220 

Leonard  Wellington 220 

Ward  4 Francis  A.  Faulkner 220 

Ward  s Henry  S.  Martin 220 

Marlow John  O.  Jones 160 

Marlborough Levi  A.  Fuller 208 

Nelson Josiah  H.  Melville 160 

Rindge Zebulon  Converse 196 

Richmond Nathan  F.  Newell 220 

Roxbury Brigham  Nims 228 

Stoddard Ephraim  Stevens 160 

Sullivan Asa  E.  Wilson 172 

Surry George  K.  Harvey 236 

Swanzey Benjamin  F.  Lombard 236 

Stephen  Faulkner 236 

Troy David  W.  Farrar 200 

Walpole David  Buffum 256 

Charles  Fisher 256 

Westmoreland Willard  W.  Pierce 244 

Winchester Ellery  Albee 246 

Sidney  M.  Morse 246 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY. 

Acworth Charles  K.  Brooks 138 

Charlestown Benjamin  Labaree 124 

Abel  Hunt 124 

Claremont Nathaniel  Tolles 108 

John  S.  Walker 108 

George  H.  Stowell 108 

Albert  F.  Winn 108 

Stephen  F.  Rossiter 108 

Cornish Chester  Pike 166 

Croydon Pliny  Hall 102 

Goshen Hiram  Sholes 90 

Grantham Thomas  B.  Alexander 154 

Langdon William  P.  Wilson 136 

Lempster Cyrus  H.  Hodgman 1 14 

Newport Levi  W.  Barton 88 

Dexter  Richards 88 

John  B.  Cooper 88 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  I  95 

Plainfield Fred  Moulton 140 

Springfield Daniel  N.  Adams 90 

Sunapee William  C.  Sturoc 80 

Unity Joseph  M.  Perkins 126 

Washington George  W.  Carr 68 

GRAFTON   COUNTY. 

Alexandria Orrin  S.  Gale 78 

Ashland Barnett  Hughes 96 

Path Solomon  S.  Carbee 192 

Penton George  W.  Mann 206 

Bethlehem John  G.  Sinclair 236 

Willis  Wilder 252 

Bridgewater Nathaniel  Batchelder 100 

Bristol William  A.  Beckford 62 

Marshall  W.  White 62 

Campton George   H.  Adams no 

Canaan Charles  Day 106 

George  W.  Murray 102 

Dorchester Abner  Blodgett 120 

Enfield Everett  B.  Huse 116 

James  W.  Johnson 124 

Franconia David  H.  Applebee 234 

Grafton Alanson  Walker 80 

Groton Andrew  Remick 90 

Hanover Elijah  B.  Hurlbutt 150 

Henry  E.  Parker 1 50 

Haverhill Samuel  P.  Page 184 

Joseph  Powers 174 

Hebron William  C.  Ross 80 

Holderness Oliver  H.  P.  Craig 100 

Landaff John  C.  Atwood 216 

Lebanon Albert  M.  Shaw 130 

John  L.  Spring 130 

Francis  A.  Cushman 130 

Nathan  B.  Stearns 134 

Lisbon Joseph  Parker 206 

Michael  M.  Stevens 206 

Littleton Harry  Pingham 226 

Cyrus  Eastman 226 

John  Farr 230 

Lyme George  F.  Sawtell 176 

Lyman Herbert  P.  Moulton 216 

Monroe Larkin  Hastings 198 

Orange Ora  H.  Heath 100 

Orford Charles  W.  Pierce 198 

Piermont Aaron  P.  Gould 200 

Plymouth Joseph  Purrows 1 02 

Nathan  H.  Weeks 102 

Thornton Albert  Lyford 120 

Warren George  F.  Putnam 140 

Waterville Merrill  Greeley 130 

Wentworth Jeremiah  Blodgett 132 

Woodstock  &  Lincoln Arthur  Hunt 150 


I96  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

COOS  COUNTY. 

Berlin Horace  C.  Sawyer 364 

Carroll Charles  Pillsbury 268 

Clarksville Josiah  Young 370 

Colebrook Hasen  Bedel 340 

Frank  Aldrich 340 

Columbia Samuel  M.  Harvey 330 

Dalton Bert  A.  Taylor 264 

Dummer Isaac  C.  Wight 400 

Errol John  Akers 386 

Gorham Benjamin  F.  Howard 400 

Jefferson Nathan  R.  Perkins 290 

Lancaster Jacob  Benton 270 

William  Burns 270 

Milan Adams  Twitchell 330 

Northumberland Robert  Atkinson 288 

Pittsburg David  Blanchard 348 

Randolph George  Wood... 404 

Shelburne Hiram  T.  Cummings 400 

Stark Joseph  A.  Pike 310 

Stewartstown Edwin  W.  Drew 350 

Stratford George  R.  Eaton 312 

Whitefield Alson  L.  Brown 258 

Moses  H.  Gordon 248 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Morse  of  Portsmouth,  the  convention  re- 
solved itself  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  so  much  of  Part 
Second  of  the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  legislative  depart- 
ment. 

IN    COMMITTEE    OF   THE   WHOLE. 

(Mr.  W.  H.  Y.  Hackett  of  Portsmouth  in  the  chair.) 

The  proposition  of  Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner  being  before  the 
committee — 

Mr.  Ordway.  At  the  time  I  introduced  my  amendments,  the 
gentlemen  of  the  committee  will  remember  that  we  had  not  re- 
ceived the  Manual  which  the  convention  had  ordered ;  and,  in 
fact,  it  was  a  difficult  thing  to  find  one  in  the  city,  even  of  last 
year,  or  of  any  preceding  year  in  any  number, — so  I  was  un- 
able to  procure  the  proper  figures.  Since  that  time  I  have 
taken  considerable  pains  to  ascertain  the  exact  effect  of  these 
amendments,  and  I  now  propose  to  address  myself  strictly  to 
my  amendments  and  their  effect.  It  will  be  remembered  by 
the  members  of  this  committee,  that  at  the  time  I  offered  these 
amendments  I   stated  that  it  was  my  belief  that  we  ought  to 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  IQ7 

confine  ourselves  to  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution  that 
would  leave  the  political  complexion  of  the  house  of  represent- 
atives where  we  found  it. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  In  order  that  the  committee  may 
fully  understand  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Warner, 
I  move  that  this  article,  as  proposed  to  be  amended,  be  read. 

The  clerk  then  read  the  article  as  proposed  to  be  amended  by 
the  gentleman  from  Warner. 

Mr.  Ordway.  When  I  stopped,  I  adverted  to  the  fact  that 
this  committee  would  not  and  ought  not  to  take  any  action  that 
would  change  the  political  complexion  of  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives ;  and  that,  in  any  reduction  they  might  make,  that  fact 
ought  to  be  kept  in  mind.  Now,  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  just 
and  exact  proposition  that  will  accomplish  that  result,  I  have 
spent  considerable  time  to  ascertain  what  number  of  represent- 
atives it  would  take  from  the  small  towns  having  one  represent- 
ative their  just  proportion  ;  what  number  it  would  take  from 
middle  towns  having  two  representatives  their  just  proportion  ; 
and  what  number  it  would  take  from  towns  having  three,  four, 
five,  six,  seven,  and  eight  representatives  their  just  proportion  ; 
and  I  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  a  basis  of  200  ratable 
polls,  or  150  legal  voters,  makes  very  little  difference  :  the  result 
would  be  the  same  in  the  number  of  towns  that  would  have  to 
be  classed.  It  would  reduce  the  house  of  representatives  one 
third.  It  would  take  one  third  of  the  members  out,  leaving  the 
political  complexion  of  the  house  unchanged — within  two  or 
three  votes,  perhaps  less  than  that — so  that  each  town  would 
know  exactlv  where  it  stood  and  what  had  been  done. 

In  the  table  which  I  have  prepared,  I  have  taken  the  vote  of 
1S75,  because  that  shows  a  closer  vote  for  representatives  than 
the  one  of  1S76,  and  have  arrived  at  this  result :  That  the  house 
would  be  reduced  about  125  members — the  republicans  having 
about  122  members  and  the  democrats  about  106  members,  with 
4S  towns  to  class.  Dividing  those  towns,  and  assuming  that 
they  will  give  21  representatives,  and  that  the  democrats  would 
get  14  and  the  republicans  7 — because  that  year  those  small 
towns  went  more  generally  democratic  than  they  did  last  year — 
it  would  have  produced  in  that  year  129  republicans  and  120 


I98  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

democrats.  I  believe  the  majority  in  the  house  that  year  was 
10  or  11,  perhaps  12.  My  proposition  was  this, — that  the  com- 
plexion of  the  house  would  not  be  changed  by  taking  part  of 
the  representation  from  a  town  ; — if  a  town  was  republican  and 
had  two  representatives,  the  complexion  of  that  town  would 
not  be  changed  by  taking  away  one  of  them.  I  will  not  dwell 
on  the  figures  of  1S75,  and  only  allude  to  them  to  show  that  the 
same  result  followed  in  1876.  In  1876  the  house  of  represent- 
atives numbered  390  —  211  republicans  and  179  democrats, 
leaving  a  majority  of  32.  Taking  the  vote  of  1876,  I  find  that 
Belknap  county  had  7  republicans  and  1 1  democrats,  and  under 
this  plan  that  county  would  lose  7  representatives,  and  one  town 
probably  to  be  classed.  Carroll  county  had  7  republicans  and 
16  democrats.  Under  my  plan  it  would  lose  9  representatives, 
and  seven  towns  would  have  to  be  classed,  with  only  two  towns 
taken  out  by  the  taking-away  process ;  and  the  result  without 
classing  would  be,  that  the  republicans  would  have  3  and  the 
democrats  9,  with  7  towns  classed.  Cheshire  county  had  23 
republicans  and  10  democrats.  Under  my  plan  the  loss  would  be 
12,  with  6  towns  classed,  giving  the  republicans  15  and  the  dem- 
ocrats 6.  Coos  county  had  10  republicans  and  13  democrats, 
and  under  my  system  would  lose  10,  with  8  towns  classed,  and 
only  2  towns  dropped  out;  and  those  8  towns  would  produce  a 
sufficient  number  of  votes  to  bring  that  county's  representation, 
probably,  nearly  as  it  was  before.  Grafton  county  had  23  re- 
publicans to  25  democrats.  By  my  plan  22  members  would 
be  dropped  out,  10  towns  classed,  leaving  12  dropped  out  by 
reduction,  and  a  proportion  of  13  democrats  to  13  republicans 
— not  disturbing  the  political  complexion  at  all.  Hillsborough 
county  stood  38  republicans  to  40  democrats.  By  my  proposi- 
tion it  would  lose  30,  and  its  political  complexion  would  not  be 
materially  changed,  as  the  proportion  would  stand  22  republi- 
cans to  23  democrats,  with  8  towns  to  class  ;  and  the  classing 
should  be  made  such  as  to  produce  that  result.  Merrimack 
county  stood  26  republicans  to  24  democrats,  and  by  my  meth- 
od would  lose  14  —  possibly  but  13  —  leaving  the  proportion  iS 
republicans  to  20  democrats,  with  one  town  to  class,  thus  pre- 
serving the  political  complexion  of  that  county.  Rockingham 
county  had  33  republicans  to  24  democrats,  with  the  town  of 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  1 99 

Gosport  making  25  democrats.  By  my  arrangement  it  would 
lose  by  reduction  23  members,  witb  9  towns  to  class  ;  and  tbe 
proportion  would  be  21  republicans  to  13  democrats,  which  the 
towns  to  class  would  make  equal.  Strafford  county  having  2S 
republicans  and  9  democrats,  under  my  amendment  would  lose 
15,  with  two  towns  to  class,  leaving  the  proportion  16  repub- 
licans to  6  democrats,  and  preserving  the  original  proportion. 
Sullivan  county  having  16  republicans  and  6  democrats,  under 
my  system  would  lose  7  members,  with  three  towns  to  class, 
leaving  the  proportion  10  republicans  to  5  democrats. 

The  result  would  be  127  republicans  to  109  democrats,  or  iS 
republican  majority,  to  211  republicans  to  179  democrats  under 
the  present  system,  and  a  reduction  of  the  house  149  members 
— about  one  third,  with  55  towns  to  class,  sending  25  represent- 
atives— 12  republicans  and  13  democrats — making  the  grand 
result,  under  my  plan,  139  republicans  to  122  democrats,  or  261 
in  all  ; — leaving  a  majority  of  17  republicans  against  a  majority  of 
32  the  present  year.  Now,  that  leaves,  apparently,  two  or  three 
votes  against  the  republicans.  I  stand  here  as  a  republican,  and 
say  that  if  we  can  get  it  within  two  or  three,  I  am  perfectly 
willing  that  it  should  take  place  ;  but  I  want  to  go  before  my 
people  with  some  proposition  whereby  I  can  tell  them  exactly 
what  it  does  for  my  town.  I  don't  want  to  go  before  them  with 
any  other  proposition.  I  object,  gentlemen,  to  the  plan  of  tak- 
ing population  as  the  basis  of  representation.  I  am  well  aware 
that  it  is  a  very  nice  thing  for  our  cities,  and  I  am  not  surprised 
that  my  friend  from  Concord  [Mr.  Gallinger]  should  advocate 
it ;  I  am  not  surprised  that  any  man  from  any  large  city  should 
advocate  it.  But  I  am  from  a  town  that,  unfortunately — like  a 
good  many  country  towns — has  fallen  off  somewhat  in  popula- 
tion, and  I  do  not  know  but  that  it  will  continue  to  fall  off; 
but  the  small  towns — the  agricultural  towns — have  more  voters 
in  proportion  than  the  cities  ; — then  why  should  we  depart  from 
the  rule  adopted  by  our  forefathers,  and  do  away  with  ratable 
polls  or  legal  voters  as  a  basis  of  representation,  when  it  is  evi- 
dent that  we  shall  strike  out  the  country  towns  to  build  up  the 
representation  of  the  cities?  I  do  not  wish  to  make  this  an 
issue  ;  but  I  do  want  to  say  to  my  country  friends  that  it  is  very 
evident  that  they  should  look  to  their  interests,  and  procure  as 


200  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

much  power  as  they  can  for  their  people,  and  advocate  this 
amendment.  It  may  be  just ;  it  may  be  unjust.  If  every  town 
had  large  manufactories  and  a  correspondingly  large  popula- 
tion, in  most  cases  the  proportion  of  legal  voters  would  be  as 
one  to  two,  or  one  to  three  ;  and  great  injustice  would  be  done 
to  those  towns  by  adopting  the  basis  of  population,  and  depart- 
ing from  the  basis  upon  which  we  have  always  been  represented 
in  the  house. 

Now,  I  wish  to  say  one  word  in  regard  to  these  towns  that  are 
to  be  classed.  I  know  that  it  takes  some  little  courage  for  any 
man  to  stand  here  upon  this  floor  and  say  that  he  is  willing  to 
strike  out  the  small  towns.  I  fully  sympathize  with  my  friends 
who  have  pleaded  before  this  committee,  and  said  they  wanted  to 
see  the  farmers'  sons  come  down  here, — and  I  fully  sympathize 
with  my  friend  who  wished  that ;  but  I  do  say,  that  for  every 
farmer's  boy  that  comes  up  here  he  would  have  ten  or  a  dozen 
of  his  friends  from  the  large  cities.  We  know  that  we  all  feel, 
as  I  know  he  feels,  a  great  interest  in  the  farmers'  sons  of  this 
state  ;  but  we  know  also  that  he  feels  so  deep  an  interest  in 
having  the  city  of  Manchester  have  an  interest  on  this  floor, 
that  he  will  be  content  to  remain  with  thirty-one  or  two  repre- 
sentatives on  this  floor,  and  allow  the  small  towns  to  have  one 
apiece.  Now,  I  want  to  say  just  this  with  reference  to  the 
small  towns  :  You  have  got  to  do  something  ;  you  cannot  cut 
this  house  down  and  leave  every  town  as  it  is  now ;  it  is  im- 
possible. Now,  where  shall  we  take  them  from  ?  Allowing  55 
classed  towns  to  produce  25  members,  I  have  taken  30  from  the 
small  towns.  Well,  my  friends  from  the  small  towns  say,  "You 
have  taken  too  much  off — more  than  one  half."  I  believe  we 
have  taken  a  large  number,  but,  unfortunately,  these  small  towns 
represent  small  constituencies,  and  I  believe  that  if  these  towns 
were  properly  classed,  and  two  of  them  were  made  into  one, 
the  members  could  come  up  here  alternately — the  member  from 
one  town  coming  one  session,  and  the  other  the  next.  I  believe 
that  members  would  feel  much  more  manhood  and  strength  to 
represent  a  solid  constituency,  and  come  every  other  year,  than 
they  would  to  come  every  year,  and  have  a  dozen  men  talking 
around,  "We  must  cut  oft'  these  small  towns."  We  cut  off 
Gosport  at  the  last  session  of  the  legislature,  and  I  did  not 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  201 

hear  my  friend  from  Exeter  [Mr.  Marston]  say  one  word 
against  it ;  indeed,  if  I  recollect  right,  he  voted  for  it.  There 
was  a  talk  of  cutting  off  Winchester.  If  I  remember  right, 
there  was  a  talk  of  taking  oft"  some  towns  in  Cheshire  county. 

Now,  I  say  to  my  friends  in  the  small  towns,  I  would  do 
nothing  unjust  against  you,  but  if  there  is  to  be  a  reduction  in 
the  house,  it  must  affect  the  small  towns.  In  that  respect,  I 
would  say,  that  it  seems  to  me  that  the  small  towns  had  better 
at  this  time  look  this  matter  squarely  in  the  face,  and  see  if 
they  cannot  come  in  alternate  sessions  from  the  small  towns, 
and  have  a  representation  and  constituency  behind  them,  so 
that  no  member  on  this  floor  will  talk  of  taking  them  and 
classing  them  with  some  other  towns.  They  do  not  know 
what  town  they  will  be  classed  with,  or  whether  they  will  be 
taken  out  entirely.  It  is  a  matter  that  ought  to  be  considered 
here  now  :  for  this  purpose  I  recommend  to  the  small  towns — to 
their  representatives — to  consider.  I  have  taken  thirty  members 
from  the  small  towns,  by  classing  them  with  each  other.  If  you 
run  through  the  list  which  I  have  here — I  have  not  time  to  go 
through  it  all — you  will  see  that  it  gives  a  list  of  the  legal  votes 
cast  for  both  candidates  in  1S75,  and  I  have  the  ratable  polls  as 
returned  in  this  Mamial  for  1S76;  I  have  also  the  totals  for 
1S75.  I  have  the  numbers  taken  from  the  record  and  from  the 
Manual,  and  there  cannot  be  any  mistake  about  these  figures. 
I  say,  if  you  run  through  these  figures,  you  will  see  that  the 
towns  having  two  or  three  members,  furnish  seventy-five  mem- 
bers of  this  reduction.  You  have  taken  from  these  small  towns 
that  furnish  but  one  member,  thirty  members  ;  and  the  towns 
that  furnish  two  or  three  members  each,  furnish  the  next  seven- 
ty-five ;  and  the  balance — twenty-four — making  up  the  remain- 
der, come  from  the  large  towns  and  wards  in  this  state. 

Now,  this  is  the  simplest  proceeding  in  the  world.  You  can 
take  a  larger  house  and  have  a  larger  number  of  members,  and 
a  smaller  house  and  make  the  number  smaller  ;  but  I  warn  you, 
gentlemen,  on  both  sides  of  this  house,  democrats  and  republi- 
cans, that  if  you  want  to  preserve  the  political  status  as  it  is — 
as  was  intimated  when  we  first  came  here — there  is  no  way 
you  can  leave  this,  unless  you  take  it  oft"  evenly,  or  leave  it  as 
it  is, — in  other  words,  cut  oft"  your  members  evenly.    In  regard 


202  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

to  the  justice  of  the  matter,  I  have  to  say,  I  believe  the  people 
of  the  state  want  a  reduction  of  the  house  of  representatives. 
I  believe  that  that  was  one  of  the  reasons  why  they  have  called 
this  convention.  I  believe  you  have  decided  to  reduce  the 
house, — and  I  will  not  argue  that  question, — you  have  decided 
that ;  and  there  is  another  thing  you  have  decided, — that  you 
want  to  get  it  done  in  a  safe  manner,  and  in  a  manner  that  will 
be  accepted  by  the  people.  Now,  if  you  vote  on  a  proposition 
and  give  it  to  the  people,  you  will  have  to  tell  them,  "  That  is 
my  judgment,"  or,  the  figures  of  Mr.  Jenks — and  I  know  that  he 
is  one  of  the  best  figurers  in  this  state.  I  have  great  confidence 
in  these  figures  of  Dr.  Gallinger's ;  but  I  do  not  want  to  have 
any  uncertainty,  and  I  do  not  want  to  vote  for  any  reduction  of 
members  of  this  house  unless  I  know  we  are  getting  something 
founded  on  some  basis  by  which  we  know  whether  we  are  not 
cheated,  or  whether  the  other  side  is  not  cheated,  when  we  get 
there.  Now,  that  is  my  programme  ;  and  I  say  I  would  not 
vote — would  not  go  to  my  people  and  say  I  voted — on  a  prop- 
osition because  I  thought  it  equitable,  because  I  thought  it 
might  work  so-and-so,  and  yet  not  be  able  to  tell  what  advan- 
tage it  is  to  my  town.  They  did  not  send  me  here  for  that 
purpose.  They  sent  me  here  to  favor  such  amendments,  so  far 
as  I  could,  as  in  my  judgment  were  necessary,  and  that  they 
could  vote  for. 

One  woi'd  in  regard  to  the  effect  upon  cities  and  large  towns  : 
I  think  that  my  proposition,  with  all  deference  to  my  friend 
from  Manchester  [Mr.  Gilmore] — and  I  know  he  is  a  very  care- 
ful man — I  know  he  works  carefully  for  the  interests  of  his 
people  ; — I  will  say,  his  proposition  will  take  more  members 
from  the  city  of  Manchester  than  mine  will.  My  proposition 
has  this  advantage  :  It  takes  men  from  all  parts  of  the  state ; 
and  you  will,  in  classing  those  fifty-five  towns,  do  justice  to 
that  party  which  figures  may  seem  to  have  wronged  in  compu- 
tation ;  and  I  say  now,  and  I  defy  any  man  to  disprove  it,  that 
there  is  not  any  possible  chance  for  deception  about  this  matter, 
— there  is  not  any  way  by  which  there  can  be  any  deception, 
because  I  have  taken  these  two  years,  and  I  have  gone  through 
with  them,  and  I  will  go  through  with  them  with  any  com- 
mittee,  and  the  list  comes   out  by  two  or  three,  politically, 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  203 

as  it  now  stands.  Take  any  principle  that  will  cut  off  small 
towns — take  the  five  hundred,  and  I  take  this  number. 
"Why?  Because  four  hundred  will  stretch  into  a  large  number 
of  towns.  Take  four  hundred  and  fifty,  and  you  make  a  num- 
ber which  a  great  many  towns  will  stretch  into  ;  but  when  you 
come  to  stretch  the  list  from  three  hundred  and  fifty  to  five 
hundred,  they  cannot  do  it,  and  therefore  five  hundred  is  the 
only  sum  that  you  would  make,  after  consideration,  the  first  re- 
duction in  ;  and  I  say  to  my  friend,  if  you  so  define  ratable  polls, 
I  believe  that  is  the  best  thing  to  be  done,  because  it  is  about 
as  difficult  to  tell  legal  voters  as  ratable  polls.  Define  rata- 
ble polls,  and  I  think  you  will  get  three  hundred  and  seventy- 
five  or  four  hundred,  and  you  do  not  reduce  your  house  to 
amount  to  anything.  Now  if  you  gentlemen  do  not  want  to 
reduce  this  house,  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  let  it  stand  as  it  is  ; 
but  if  you  mean  what  you  say,  and  you  want  to  reduce  this 
house  as  you  have  indicated — about  one  third — you  thereby 
make  a  great  saving  to  the  state,  by  biennial  sessions  and  the 
reduction  of  this  house.  As  shown  by  the  report  of  the  treas- 
urer last  year,  I  think  the  cost  of  the  legislature  was  some 
$55,000  to  $5S,ooo,  and  probably,  when  you  pay  all  the  bills, 
it  will  amount  to  $60,000.  Take  off  one  third — take  off  one 
quarter  if  you  increase  the  senate — and  you  have  reduced  at 
least  $75,000,  by  reduction  of  the  house  and  by  biennial  sessions, 
and  saved  to  the  people  of  this  state  every  two  years  enough  to 
pay  the  cost  of  this  convention,  and  another  one  like  it  if  you 
wish.  Now,  I  apprehend  that  the  people  of  this  state,  while 
not  penurious  or  mean,  do  want  to  save  $75,000.  I  apprehend 
that  if  you  go  to  them  and  say,  "  This  amendment  will  give 
you  peace  and  quiet  for  at  least  one  of  two  years,  and  will  save 
you  $75,000  for  the  first  two  years,  and  so  on  for  all  time,"  I 
think  you  will  find  it  will  have  great  weight  with  these  men, 
these  voters,  men  interested  in  the  subject,  when  they  come  up 
to  vote  on  the  proposition  ;  and  with  all  due  deference  to  the 
judgment  of  others,  I  will  vote  for  any  other  proposition,  for 
any  amendment  any  member  will  present,  and  bring  his  fig- 
ures in  here, — bring  his  work  with  him  as  I  have  done.  I 
can  tell  you  how  every  town  will  stand  in  the  state  by  these 
figures.     If  any  member  of  this  convention  will   come  in  and 


204  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

give  me  figures,  or  show  a  better  plan  to  produce  this  result, 
I  am  perfectly  willing  to  advocate  his  plan.  [A  call  was 
made  upon  Mr.  Ordway  to  read  his  figures.]  The  paper 
will  be  too  long  to  read  ;  I  have  got  the  aggregate,  and  I  will 
answer  any  questions  any  man  will  ask.  I  will  say  this :  It 
does  not  make  any  difference  to  any  towns  whether  you  make 
the  basis  fifty  legal  voters  or  two  hundred  ratable  polls ;  the 
result  will  be  substantially  the  same,  and  I  am  not  particular 
which  course  you  adopt.  I  made  my  first  computation  on 
towns  casting  one  hundred  and  fifty  votes  at  an  election  when 
one  of  the  largest  votes  was  ever  polled  in  New  Hampshire 
— in  1875.  Now,  gentleman,  I  have  already  occupied  too  much 
of  your  time  ;  but  this  proposition  is  one  of  great  import- 
ance. [A  voice,  "  How  many  does  it  cut  off  from  the  town  of 
Warner?"]  It  cuts  off  one  from  the  town  of  Warner.  [A 
voice,  "Which  member  does  it  cut  off'?"]  In  answer,  I  will 
refer  the  gentleman  to  the  record  of  last  March,  and  to  the  vote 
electing  delegates  to  this  convention.  I  have  allowed  the  loss 
to  fall  upon  the  republican  party  in  Warner,  and  I  think  I  was 
justified  by  the  two  last  votes  in  doing  so.  I  wish  to  say,  be- 
fore taking  my  seat,  what  I  intended  to  have  said  before  closing, 
that  I  propose  to  ask,  after  this  has  been  discussed  as  much 
as  is  desirable,  that  it  be  laid  aside,  and  that  other  proposi- 
tions be  discussed.  I  do  not  wish  to  force  any  proposition 
upon  this  committee  until  such  time  as  the  committee  is  ready 
to  make  a  decision. 

Mr.  Burns  of  Lancaster.  I  will  occupy  the  time  of  the  com- 
mittee but  a  very  few  minutes.  As  has  been  remarked  by  the 
gentleman  from  Warner  [Mr.  Ordway],  this  committee  have  ex- 
pressed themselves  very  unanimously  in  favor  of  a  reduction  of 
the  house  of  representatives,  and  I  believe  that  the  constituents 
of  almost  every  member  of  this  convention  would  be  decidedly 
in  favor  of  that.  Now,  as  a  general  proposition,  the  people 
favor  that — almost  all  the  voters  of  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire ;  but  when  you  come  to  details  there  is  a  difference  of 
opinion,  and,  though  I  am  decidedly  in  favor  of  moderately 
reducing  the  house  if  it  can  be  done,  I  have  had  great  doubt, 
and  have  now,  whether  we  can  agree  here  in  committee  upon 
any  proposition  for  a  material  reduction.     I  doubt  about  our 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  20$ 

being  able  to  agree  upon  any  proposition  which  shall  be  rati- 
fied by  the  people.  If  we  can  do  so,  I  am  willing  to  have  dis- 
cussion to  almost  any  extent,  and  make  the  attempt ;  and  when 
I  express  this  doubt,  I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that 
I  am  in  favor  of  something  of  the  kind  as  strongly  as  any  mem- 
ber of  this  committee,  if  we  can  agree  upon  the  details  of  some 
proposition. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me — I  don't  say  that  the  gentleman  from 
Warner  [Mr.  Ordway]  looks  at  it  in  this  light — but  it  seems  to 
me  that  he  is  somewhat  prejudiced  ;  we  all  are.  We  have  par- 
ty feeling,  most  of  us  have  strong  party  feeling,  and  we  may 
well  look  at  the  effect  of  this  feeling  when  we  have  it.  As  far 
as  my  own  county  is  concerned,  on  the  face  of  that  proposition 
it  looks  very  fair  indeed  ;  and  the  remark  of  the  gentleman 
was,  that  the  classed  towns — which  would  be  very  numerous  in 
my  county,  the  towns  being  small — that  they  could  be  classed  in 
a  way  to  make  the  representatives  about  as  they  are  now — 
about  as  they  were  last  June.  I  admit  that  to  be  true  ;  but  will 
they  be  so  classed?  They  can  be,  gentlemen.  In  looking  over 
these  towns,  I  can  see  a  way  in  which  these  towns  might  be 
classed — might  be — so  that  in  a  county  where  we  cast  about 
3,500  votes,  and  one  political  party  has  a  majority  of  500  in 
that  county,  I  can  see  how  these  small  towns  might  be  classed 
in  a  way  to  give  the  other  political  party  a  majority  of  the  rep- 
resentatives. It  is  very  easily  fixed.  Now,  I  allude  to  this 
merely  to  show  the  difficulty  of  this  proposition  in  connection 
with  any  party ;  for  all  men  that  will  look  at  it,  will  look  at  it 
in  that  way  to  a  very  great  extent.  Now,  I  have  but  one  fur- 
ther remark  to  make, — and  I  know  what  the  feeling  of  gentlemen 
residing  in  the  large  cities  is ;  I  know  what  their  feelings  are 
very  well ;  but  I  state  it  here, — I  believe  that  in  order  to  carry 
any  proposition  whatever  before  the  people,  the  reduction  has 
got  to  be  made  largely  in  these  large  cities  ;  and  I  claim  that  it 
is  fair,  just,  and  right  that  it  should  be  made  there.  Now  look 
at  it  for  one  moment:  I  will  ask,  gentlemen  of  this  committee, 
suppose  that  the  city  of  Manchester  increase  so  that  the)'  will 
have  a  larger  population,  more  ratable  polls,  than  all  the  rest  of 
this  state,  I  ask  you  would  it  then  be  fair  and  right  that  you 
should  put  into  the  hands  of  that  one  city  the  control  of  the 


206  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

whole  state  of  New  Hampshire?  I  will  ask  my  republican 
friends.  New  York  city  is  rapidly  increasing,  and  in  a  short 
time  the  population  of  that  city  may  be  greater  than  all  the 
rest  of  the  great  state  of  New  York.  I  will  ask  you,  gen- 
tlemen, when  that  population  increases  to  that  extent,  would 
you  claim  it  to  be  fair  and  right  that  representation  should 
be  based  upon  ratable  polls?  would  you  put  the  city  of  New 
York  in  control  of  the  entire  state — the  absolute  control? 
Now,  would  not  that  be  the  practical  operation?  I  allude  to 
this  to  show  that  the  reduction  must  come  mainly,  not  wholly 
— I  do  not  ask  for  that — but  mainly  from  the  large  cities  and 
towns.  There  are  a  great  number  of  small  towns,  covering  a 
great  extent  of  territory.  You  put  them  absolutely  under  the 
control  of  one,  two,  or  three  large  cities,  and  I  say  they  never 
will  agree  to  it. 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth.  I  seems  to  me  that  the  proposi- 
tion will  be  a  fair  one,  and  I  hope  that  my  amendment  to  the 
proposition  will  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster.  Every  man  that  comes  to  discuss 
this  matter  talks  about  the  equal  rights  of  all ;  that  every  man 
is  entitled  to  his  equal  voice  and  equal  influence  in  the  govern- 
ment. We  should  be  governed  by  the  highest  principles  in 
our  deliberations.  Most  of  the  delegates  before  me  are  men 
whose  heads  are  whitened  by  the  frosts  of  many  winters,  and 
who  will  not  linger  here  many  years,  and  they  should  aim  to 
act  independently  of  partisan  considerations. 

Mr.  Murray  of  Canaan.  I  have  presented  to  this  committee 
no  proposition,  or,  rather,  amendment,  to  this  article.  I  have 
had  no  pet  scheme  for  altering  this  article  in  reference  to  the 
house  of  representatives.  Gentlemen,  when  I  came  here  to 
this  convention,  I  had  considered  some  three  propositions : 
First,  that  it  might  be  as  well  to  have  the  state  divided  into  a 
certain  number  of  districts — say  ioo;  another  was,  to  have  each 
senatorial  district  send  a  certain  number  of  representatives,  to 
be  nominated  and  elected  as  we  nominate  and  elect  our  sena- 
tors ;  another  proposition  was,  to  have  this  convention  district 
the  state,  as  they  have  in  Maine, — that  is,  to  go  on  and  district 
the  whole  state,  putting  the  towns  together,  and  where   there 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  207 

was  a  town  that  was  entitled  by  its  population  to  one,  two, 
or  three,  or  more  representatives,  give  that  town  or  city  so 
many  representatives,  and  then  class  the  different  towns  to- 
gether. That  is  the  way  that  I  understand  it  has  been  done  in 
Maine,  and  that  it  is  so  established  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
state.  These  were  the  three  propositions  that  I  had  somewhat 
considered  before  I  came  into  this  convention  ;  but  since  the 
arguments  commenced,  and  since  hearing  the  argument  of  the 
gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr.  Gallinger],  I  have  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  best  method  that  we  can  adopt  here  as  a 
basis  of  representation  is  the  population  of  the  state.  I  like  the 
idea  of  having  the  popular  branch  of  the  legislature  based  upon 
the  population.  The  popular  branch  at  Washington  is  based 
upon  the  population,  and  I  understand  that  in  the  state  of  New 
York  the  representation  in  the  popular  branch  is  based  upon 
the  population  ;  and  if  members  of  this  committee  will  look 
on  page  seventy-one  of  the  Hand  Book,  they  will  find  that, 
in  a  foot-note  there,  it  reads  as  follows :  "  Representation 
in  both  branches  of  the  legislature  is  based  upon  population 
in  all  states  but  six,  as  follows :  Indiana,  the  number  of 
white  males;  Kentucky,  Massachusetts,  Mississippi,  and  Ten- 
nessee, the  number  of  qualified  voters  ;  New  Hampshire,  the 
number  of  ratable  polls  for  the  house,  and  direct  taxes  for  the 
senate."  You  will  find  that  there  are  twenty-eight  states  based 
upon  population,  and  I  believe  that  that  is  a  fair  way  to  solve 
this  problem.  What  we  want  is  this :  If  the  popular  vote  of 
New  Hampshire  is  republican,  we  want  a  republican  house  of 
representatives;  if  the  popular  vote  of  this  state  is  democratic, 
let  us  have  a  democratic  house.  I  think  that  such  a  proposi- 
tion would  be  adopted  by  the  people.  Let  this  house  be  repub- 
lican if  the  popular  vote  be  republican,  or  let  it  be  democratic 
if  the  popular  vote  be  democratic, — for  I  believe  in  the  old  dem- 
ocratic doctrine  of  letting  the  majority  rule  ;  and  if  we  can 
devise  some  plan  that  will  carry  out  that  idea  on  the  basis  of 
population,  I  should  like  it.  I  am  fully  in  favor  of  having  the 
population  made  the  basis. 

Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth  moved  to  amend  the  amendment 
by  striking  out  the  words  "  two  hundred  ratable  polls,"  and  in- 
serting "  one  hundred  and  fifty  legal  voters." 


208  JOURNAL   OF  THE 

Mr.  Sawtell  of  Lyme  introduced  the  following  resolution, 
and  asked  for  an  immediate  vote  upon  the  same : 

The  chair  ruled  it  out  of  order  at  the  present  time. 

Resolved,  That  the  basis  for  reducing  the  house  of  represent- 
atives be  fixed  either  on  population  or  on  legal  voters. 

Mr.  Hatch  of  Keene  introduced  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  committee  decide  upon  the  basis  of  rep- 
resentation to  be  adopted,  in  the  following  manner,  to  wit :  That 
all  members  in  favor  of  basing  the  representation  of  towns  upon 
ratable  polls  shall  rise,  stand,  and  be  counted  ;  after  which,  all 
those  in  favor  of  basing  the  representation  upon  legal  voters 
shall  rise  and  be  counted ;  then,  those  in  favor  of  basing  the 
representation  upon  the  population  shall  rise  and  be  counted. 
The  proposition  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  in  its 
favor  shall  be  considei-ed  in  detail. 

Mr.  Hatch.  Some  gentlemen  seem  to  think  that  we  are 
wandering,  and  not  coming  to  any  conclusion.  It  strikes  me 
that  we  are  doing  well  and  coming  to  a  point,  and  I  think  that 
I  can  see  the  point  to  which  we  are  coming.  I  introduced  a 
resolution  the  other  day  in  regard  to  the  districts,  and  I  believe 
that  that  is  the  fairest  and  best  way  to  do  it ;  and  I  have  not 
seen  one  member,  in  or  out  of  the  convention,  but  what  agrees 
with  me  that  that  is  the  easiest  method.  It  has  been  repre- 
sented by  a  great  many  gentlemen  that  they  do  not  believe  that 
the  people  would  favor  it.  If  it  contemplates  too  great  a 
change,  I  do  not  want  to  force  it  upon  the  convention.  I  see 
two  reasons  why  this  change  might  not  be  favorably  received  if 
it  were  made :  first,  the  people  would  not  understand  it — it 
would  be  too  great  a  change  ;  secondly,  it  depends  upon  how 
these  districts  are  to  be  made.  Now,  because  of  the  opposition 
that  one  party  would  naturally  make  to  the  other,  I  think  it  is 
very  possible,  and  perhaps  probable,  that  a  plan  of  that  kind 
would  fail  if  it  should  go  to  the  people.  I  do  not  think  that  we 
can  gain  anything  by  substituting  legal  voters  for  ratable  polls. 
I  am  in  favor  of  fixing  upon  the  population — on  some  basis  to 
be  settled  by  this  committee.  But  let  us  aim  at  some  definite 
basis,  and  either  have  the  representation  upon  the  legal  voters, 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  200, 

or  ratable  polls.     I  think  only  one  or  the  other  of  these  meth- 
ods will  be  acceptable  to  the  people. 

Mr.  Briggs  of  Manchester.  If  the  committee  will  indulge 
me  for  a  few  minutes,  I  should  like  to  say  a  few  words  right 
here.  I  suppose  we  have  met  here  to  reduce  the  number  of 
members  of  this  house  of  representatives.  That  is  one  object. 
Nearly  every  member  of  the  convention  has  a  plan  peculiarly 
his  own,  and  he  honestly  believes  that  it  is  the  most  judicious 
thing  that  the  state  can  do  to  adopt  his  plan.  They  have  been 
discussed,  upon  the  one  hand  and  the  other,  ably,  and  in  a 
very  learned  manner ;  but  it  seems  to  me,  if  the  work  of  this 
convention  is  to  be  a  success,  that  certain  things  have  been 
intimated  or  suggested  here  in  the  discussion  which  are  not  at 
all  liable  to  produce  that  result.  It  has  been  continually  said 
of  the  cities,  particularly  of  Manchester,  that  they  are  over 
represented  in  this  convention,  and  in  the  house  of  representa- 
tives, upon  the  present  basis  of  representation.  Propositions 
have  been  made  with  a  view  to  strike  out  from  the  large 
places,  and  leave  the  smaller  towns  undisturbed.  I  do  not  un- 
derstand that  there  is  any  gentleman,  either  from  Manchester, 
or  any  other  city  or  large  town,  who  complains  of  that  result — 
that  is,  if  they  are  cut  down.  I  think  there  is  some  mistake  in 
relation  to  whether  she  has  more  than  her  share  of  representa- 
tion upon  the  floor  of  this  convention.  I  think  that  there  should 
be  an  equal  representation  upon  this  floor,  and  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  way  most  consistent  with  the  fundamental  principles 
upon  which  the  state  rests  is  upon  the  basis  of  representation 
upon  the  population  of  the  state.  They  say  Manchester  has  a 
larger  representation,  when  we  have  twenty-six,  than  we  are 
entitled  to.  We  pay  into  the  state  treasury  one  tenth  part  of 
the  state  tax.  Now,  if  we  were  represented  according  to  prop- 
erty, we  should  have  thirty-nine  members  instead  of  twenty-six. 
It  has  been  the  universal  talk  here  that  there  is  a  great  public 
demand  for  a  change  in  the  Constitution.  There  is  a  demand, 
to  some  extent,  and  I  wish  to  say,  notwithstanding  that,  that 
the  people  of  New  Hampshire  have  as  strong  an  attachment 
for  this  old  instrument  as  I  have.  Unless  the  action  of  this 
convention  is  such  as  to  improve  upon  that  instrument,  it  is  not 
to  meet  with  the  approbation  of  the  people.  Whatever  we  do 
14 


210  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

must  be  done  with  the  greatest  care  and  with  the  greatest  wis- 
dom, and  it  must  be  done  with  the  greatest  fairness  and  greatest 
equality,  not  only  to  the  small  towns,  but  also  to  the  large 
towns  and  cities. 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner.  I  wish  to  say  just  one  word  in 
reply  to  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester 
[Mr.  Briggs]  that  the  city  of  Manchester  pays  a  very  large  tax. 
The  city  of  New  York  has  a  very  large  portion  of  the  wealth 
of  the  state.  Now,  if  the  doctrine  were  applied  to  the  legisla- 
ture of  New  York,  that  the  people  were  to  be  represented 
wholly  upon  their  wealth  and  population  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  the  same  result  would  follow  that  follows  in  the  state  on 
the  popular  vote.  The  theory  of  amending  this  constitution  is, 
that  the  voters  and  the  ratable  polls  were  to  be  represented  in 
the  house,  and  the  property  in  the  senate.  I  make  no  sugges- 
tion that  the  large  towns  have  not  their  rights  in  this  matter. 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  I  agree  with  the  statement  of  the 
o-entleman  from  Keene,  that  it  is  very  evident  that  this  conven- 
tion is  coming  to  the  question  whether  we  shall  decide  upon 
ratable  polls  or  upon  population.  I  confess  an  attachment  to  the 
plan  devised  by  the  fathers.  I  will  not  say  they  builded  better 
than  they  knew,  but  they  builded  wisely  and  well.  If  we 
adopt  the  theory  of  population,  the  wisest  plan,  in  my  judgment, 
is  the  district  system,  because  it  makes  every  district  equal,  and 
there  will  be  no  large  fractions  of  population  which  will  not  be 
represented  ;  but  if  you  take  the  population  in  the  towns,  there 
will  be  very  large  portions  that  cannot  be  represented.  Now, 
if  you  will  take  the  pamphlet  which  most  of  you  have,  and 
turn  to  the  first  page,  to  the  town  of  Greenland, — and  I  take 
that  because  it  comes  nearer  to  the  starting-point, — it  has  695 
souls  of  persons  within  its  boundaries.  It  would  be  entitled  to 
a  representative,  upon  the  theory  of  some  of  the  propositions. 
If  you  turn  to  the  town  of  Deerfield,  you  will  find  a  population 
of  1 ,768  ;  but  the  theory  of  population  will  give  Greenland 
exactly  the  same  power  in  the  representation  as  the  town  ot 
Deerfield,  which  has  nearly  three  times  its  population  ;  and  if 
that  theory  be  adopted,  taking  695  from  1,768,  you  will  have 
very  nearly  1,100  people  that  are  not  counted  in  the  basis  of 
representation.     Then,  if  you  will  look  through  this  list,  you 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  211 

will  find  there  are  about  fifty  large  towns  and  cities  in  exactly 
that  position.  And  I  will  undertake  to  say,  judging  from  wRat 
I  know  of  individuals,  that  you  will  find  all  those  towns  against 
your  proposition, — every  one  of  them.  Now,  we  complain  of 
the  expense  of  a  large  house,  and  yet,  if  you  will  go  and  jxit 
the  proposition  to  each  one  of  these  towns,  whether  they  would 
rather  pay  the  expense  as  they  now  stand  or  lose  their  repre- 
sentative, they  will  say,  "We  will  pay  the  expense,  and  pay 
it  cheerfully."  It  is  one  thing  to  make  a  new  Constitution, 
and  it  is  another  thing  to  alter  an  old  one  under  which  the  peo- 
ple are  existing;  and  the  least  we  change  it,  in  my  judgment, 
the  better.  I  should  like  the  district  system  ;  I  think  it  is  fair, 
and  equal,  and  just,  if  you  go  upon  population.  I  doubt,  as 
other  gentlemen  do,  whether  the  people  of  the  state  are  pre- 
pared for  it ;  but  I  am  prepared  to  say  here,  gentlemen,  that  in 
my  judgment  it  would  not  be  wise  to  send  any  proposition  on 
this  subject  to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire,  that  does  not 
command  two  thirds  of  the  votes  of  this  convention  ;  because 
if  we,  with  our  deliberations  and  our  discussions  and  our  ex- 
perience, cannot  give  our  consent  by  a  two-thirds  vote  to  any 
one  proposition,  you  may  be  assured  the  people  will  not  do  it. 
We  may  as  well  leave  the  Constitution  as  it  is.  It  is  my  desire 
that  we  act  as  wisely  and  harmoniously  as  possible.  I  have  no 
fault  to  find  with  any  gentleman  that  has  engaged  in  discussion 
here,  or  made  any  remarks  to  this  convention — far  be  it  from  me 
to  have  any — but  let  us,  if  we  can,  determine  what  is  wise  to 
be  done,  and  if  we  cannot  find  anything  wiser  than  our  fathers 
did,  let  our  fathers'  work. alone,  and  let  us  go  home. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  M.  C.  Burleigh  of  Somersworth,  the  reso- 
lution of  the  gentleman  from  Keenewas  laid  aside  for  the  pres- 
ent. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bruce  of  Dover, 

Ordered,  That  the  committee  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask 
leave  to  sit  again. 

IN    CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 
Mr.  Ilackctt,  chairman,  reported  that  the  committee  of  the 
whole  had  had  under  consideration  so  much  of  the  Constitu- 


212  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

tion  as  relates  to  the  legislative  department,  without  conclud- 
ing, and  asked  leave  to  sit  again. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Shaw  of  Lebanon,  the  convention  ad- 
journed. 

AFTERNOON. 

The  convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  M.  C.  Burleigh  of  Somersworth,  the  con- 
vention resolved  itself  into  committee  of  the  whole,  on  so  much 
of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  general 
court. 

IN    COMMITTEE    OF    THE    WHOLE.  , 

(Mr.  Emery  of  Portsmouth  in  the  chair.) 
On   motion  of  Mr.  M.  C.   Burleigh   of  Somersworth,  the 
proposition  introduced  by  him   this   morning  was  taken  from 
the  table  and  considered. 

Mr.  M.  C.  Burleigh.  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  that  prop- 
osition at  length,  for  it  appears  to  me  that  it  is  self-evident  on 
its  face  what  it  means.  We  have  already  left  with  the  legisla- 
ture the  power  to  make  courts,  growing  out  of  our  proposed 
amendment  in  relation  to  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  and  this 
simply  leaves  the  matter  of  apportioning  representatives  among 
the  several  towns  to  the  legislature,  precisely  as  we  leave  it  to 
the  legislature  to  put  something  in  place  of  the  right  of  trial 
by  jury,  if  that  passes,  as  proposed  by  the  convention.  Now, 
sir,  that  proposition  is  identical  in  spirit  and  sentiment  with 
the  manner  in  which  we  elect  our  congressional  representatives  : 
it  is  precisely  the  same  basis,  and  is  left  in  precisely  the  same 
position  that  our  congressional  representatives  are  left,  in  rela- 
tion to  their  apportionment  by  congress  among  the  people. 
Now  I  simply  propose  that  we  shall  reduce  this  house  to 
300.  It  seems  to  be  a  fair  number,  and  about  which  I  think 
we  are  almost  all  of  us  agreed,  and  then  leave  the  consideration 
of  the  details,  which  we  have  been  discussing  here,  to  be  settled 
by  the  legislature  when  they  shall  convene,  which  will  relieve 
this  committee  of  all  trouble  on  that  matter. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Burleigh,  his  proposition  was  laid  aside 
for  the  present. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  213 

The  committee  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  proposition 
of  Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner. 

Mr.  Whittemore  of  Pembroke  moved  to  amend  the  same  as 
follows : 

By  striking  out  all  relating  to  Article  10,  and  by  striking  out 
Articles  10  and  1 1  of  the  Constitution,  and  also  by  inserting 
after  Article  9  the  following:  "Such  towns  or  places  as  have 
less  than  the  number  of  ratable  polls  required  to  elect  one 
representative  may  elect  a  representative  such  portion  of  the 
time  as  the  number  of  their  ratable  polls  shall  bear  to  the  num- 
ber required  in  other  towns  or  places  to  elect  the  first  repre- 
sentative, provided  that  the  towns  and  places  that  may  be  entitled 
to  a  representative  a  portion  of  the  time  shall  have  the  right 
to  elect  a  representative  at  the  first  election  under  this  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution,  and  in  the  years  when  a  new  appor- 
tionment of  public  taxes  shall  be  made  by  the  legislature,  as  a 
part  of  that  portion  ;  and  the  legislature  may  prescribe  the 
manner  in  which  their  rights  of  election  as  to  the  other  propor- 
tional parts  of  the  time  shall  be  determined." 

Mr.  Whittemore.  From  the  indications  expressed  by  those 
who  have  spoken  on  this  question,  and  from  various  remarks 
that  have  been  made  by  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  have 
been  led  to  the  opinion  that  this  convention,  if  they  submitted 
any  proposition  that  would  be  likely  to  be  accepted  by  the 
people,  would  be  on  the  basis  of  ratable  polls,  or  legal  voters ; 
and  inasmuch  as  the  proposition  embraced  in  the  resolution  of 
the  gentleman  from  Warner  relates  principally  to  the  9  th  Arti- 
cle, I  desire  to  amend  further  so  that  the  small  towns  would  see 
plainly  what  might  follow, — that  is,  a  representation  a  portion 
of  the  time.  I  am  convinced  that  that  proposition  would  be 
just  and  reasonable  ;  and  if  the  first  part  of  Mr.  Ordway's  prop- 
osition should  prevail,  so  as  to  base  the  representation  on  ratable 
polls,  we  can  proceed,  it  strikes  me,  and  bring  this  matter  to  a 
close  very  speedily  by  keeping  this  resolution  before  the  com- 
mittee, and  first  determining  whether  we  shall  strike  out  one 
hundred  and  fifty  and  insert  two  hundred,  as  proposed.  If  the 
committee  should  decide  not  to  strike  out,  of  course  it  would  be 
upon  such  amendment  as  might  be  proposed  ;  but  it  would  be 


214  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

effectually  following  up  the  line  marked  out  in  the  resolution 
submitting  this  question,  whether  this  convention  is  going  to 
adhere  to  ratable  polls  as  a  basis  of  representation,  or  prefers 
some  other  mode.  In  order  to  determine  that,  we  have  got  to 
take  some  votes  and  see  how  the  complexion  of  the  convention 
may  be. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sanborn  of  Franklin,  the  proposition  of 
Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner  was  laid  aside  for  the  present. 

The  proposition  of  Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord  being  before 
the  committee — 

Mr.  Gallinger.  That  the  committee  may  not  be  prejudiced 
at  all  against  the  scheme  based  on  population,  I  desire  to  say  a 
single  word.  It  is  this  :  The  first  proposition  I  introduced  con- 
templated basing  the  first  representative  on  600  or  800,  increas- 
ing the  second  to  1,200,  the  third  to  1,500,  and  so  on.  The 
amendment  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Littleton  [Mr. 
Farr]  places  the  first  representative  on  a  basis  of  600,  and 
increasing  1,200  for  each  additional  representative.  I  desire  to 
accept  that  as  an  amendment  as  soon  as  an  opportunity  occurs. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport.  I  desire  to  make  one  suggestion. 
I  have  no  prejudice  against  one  scheme  or  another.  It  was 
suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Manchester  [Mr.  Clark],  that 
if  you  adopt  the  system  of  basing  your  representation  on  the 
population  there  would  be  a  large  surplus  that  would  be  un- 
represented, and  he  cited  two  towns,  one  of  which  had  a  small 
population,  and  the  other  quite  large — not  quite  enough  for  two. 
Now,  what  I  wish  to  say  is,  that  the  same  objection  lies  against 
the  system  founded  on  ratable  polls  or  legal  voters.  The  same 
objection  applies  to  either  of  those,  that  applies  to  this  ;  for 
we  all  know  that  in  small  towns,  under  the  system  already 
suggested,  you  have  not  enough  to  elect  two,  and  are  compelled 
to  elect  one  when  you  lack  only  a  few  votes  of  enough  to  elect 
two, — so  that  the  same  objection  lies  against  the  system  of  rata- 
ble polls  that  lies  against  the  other  two  systems.  I  desire  to 
state  that,  because  there  seems  to  be  an  impression  that  the 
objection  raised  there  was  one  worthy  of  considerable  attention 
and  consideration  ;  but  I  see  no  difference  in  all  of  these  systems 
in  regard  to  a  surplus  vote. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  215 

Mr.  Putnam  of  Warren.  I  will  detain  the  committee  but  a 
single  moment  in  regard  to  the  question  that  is  now  before  you 
for  consideration.  It  seems  to  me  that  all  the  arguments  that 
have  been  adduced  here,  in  regard  to  the  several  schemes  that 
have  been  placed  before  the  committee,  all  tend  to  show  the 
necessity  of  this  committee  coming  to  some  definite  conclusion 
in  regard  to  this  matter.  We  have  heard  talk  in  regard  to 
the  various  frauds  that  have  been  perpetrated  in  this  state  at 
our  annual  elections  in  regard  to  the  basis  of  ratable  polls  ;  and 
it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  desirable  that  this  convention  should 
adopt  the  plan  suggested  by  fixing  the  representation  in  this 
body  upon  population.  Then,  if  we  adopt  that,  we  shall  have 
something  tangible  ;  we  shall  have  something  fixed  ;  and  no 
selectman,  I  trust,  will  have  the  hardihood  to  commit  frauds 
upon  the  check-list,  or,  in  violence  of  the  Constitution,  elect 
more  representatives  to  the  house  than  the  town  is  entitled  to 
according  to  the  previous  census.  I  therefore  hope  that  the 
committee,  in  coming  to  a  conclusion  in  reference  to  this 
matter,  will  fix  it  upon  population,  and  then  we  shall  have 
something  fixed,  and  every  town  will  know  how  many  repre- 
sentatives they  are  entitled  to  elect. 

Mr.  Sanborn  of  Franklin.  The  committee  will  credit  me 
with  having  trespassed  but  very  little  upon  their  time.  I  came 
here,  like  my  friend  from  Canaan  [Mr.  Murray],  with  no  prop- 
osition of  my  own,  but  desirous  to  find  out  what  was  right,  and 
to  support  it.  I  have  listened  with  a  great  deal  of  interest  to 
the  various  propositions  and  discussions  upon  this  subject. 
There  has  been  nothing  offered  which  I  have  not  been  will- 
ing and  anxious  to  listen  to  and  to  weigh  ;  and,  sir,  I  think, 
as  between  the  propositions  that  are  offered,  the  one  which  is 
the  fairest,  which  looks  the  most  honest  and  the  most  con- 
sistent to  us,  will  be  the  proposition  that  will  be  received  in 
that  light  by  the  voters  of  this  state  next  March.  And  I  want 
to  ask,  sir,  any  friend  here  of  any  other  proposition,  what  un- 
fairness there  is — what  appearance  of  anything  that  is  not  equal 
and  just  in  fixing  the  basis  of  representation  upon  population? 
Where  is  there  any  fallacy  to  that  principle?  Is  it  not  the 
principle  and  the  theory  upon  which  the  government  of  this 
country  is  founded,  and  upon  which  the  government  of  our 
state  is  grounded  ?     Is  it  not  our  theory  ? 


2l6  JOURNAL   OF  THE 

Now,  sir,  we  should  say  that,  upon  that  theory,  if  our 
machinery  for  representation  were  perfect,  there  was  nothing 
here  to  correct.  Why,  then,  is  this  convention  assembled? 
Do  gentlemen  suppose  that  the  people  sent  us  here,  and 
the  legislature  of  this  state  appropriated  twenty-five  thou- 
sand dollars,  to  abolish  the  religious  test, — a  very  excel- 
lent thing,  I  admit,  but  something  that  never  has  worked 
injury  or  injustice  to  anybody  within  the  memory  of  any 
man  now  living.  The  time  never  was,  sir,  when  any  party 
had  the  hardihood  to  step  out  in  defiance  of  popular  opinion, 
and  apply  what  is  really  an  obsolete  test  of  our  fathers  to  the 
political  manoeuvres  of  this  generation,  and  no  party  will 
attempt  it.  We  did  not  come  here  for  that,  sir.  Did  we  come 
here  to  place  the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of  the  peace  to  one  hun- 
dred dollars?  I  doubt  that  very  much,  and  I  think  we  shall 
hear  from  that  next  March.  What,  then,  are  we  here  for? 
What  is  the  reason  of  our  coming  here,  to  putter  away  with 
words — to  alter  "  in"  to  "  into?"  or  are  we  here  to  do  substan- 
tial work?  What  has  been  the  great  complaint  for  the  last  ten 
years?  As  every  man  knows,  it  has  been  this:  that  the  orig- 
inal basis  of  representation  in  the  Constitution  has  been 
stretched — has  been  twisted  this  way  and  the  other ;  that  there 
is  an  excess  of  representation  and  not  an  honest  representation, 
and  that  the  evil  has  grown  so  great,  and  been  so  notorious,  that 
the  people  of  New  Hampshire  have  sent  us  here  to  correct  it, 
— and  that  I  believe  to  be  the  main  object  of  this  convention. 
Now,  sir,  how  shall  we  right  it?  Shall  we  preserve  the  old  plan 
of  ratable  polls?  shall  we  "  define  a  poll"  here?  Why,  sir,  it 
was  defined  in  1792,  when  the  constitution  was  adopted.  No 
man  ever  complained  that  then  it  worked  injury  ;  no  man  ever 
complained  that  then  partisans  twisted  and  stretched  it  to  suit 
their  own  ends  ; — but  the  times  have  changed,  and  we  have 
grown  into  that  trouble.  Now,  sir,  can  we  adopt  a  definition 
of  it  to-clay,  which  in  thirty  years,  or  twenty  years,  or  even  in 
ten  years,  will  stand  the  strain  of  other  exigencies.  We  have 
found  out  that  the  ratable  poll  is  a  sliding  basis,  and  the  same 
difficulty  will  occur  again.  Are  we  so  much  wiser  than  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  of  1792,  that  we  can  place  a  defini- 
tion upon  a  ratable  poll  that  can  never  be  twisted  or  warped 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  21? 

as  events  change?  It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  leaving  the  dif- 
ficulty precisely  where  we  find  it,  or,  at  least,  that  wc  are  only 
attempting  a  temporary  cure.  My  helief  is,  that  a  basis  which 
is  fixed  by  the  general  government  by  a  census  of  the  popula- 
tion, is  a  firm,  unyielding  basis,  and  one  which  can  never  work 
fraud  nor  injustice.  Sir,  I  admit  there  was  force  in  the  argu- 
ment of  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Manchester  [Mr. 
Clark]  in  regard  to  a  certain  number  of  the  people  not  being 
represented  by  this  mode.  It  struck  me  with  a  great  deal  of 
force  at  the  time  ;  but  is  this  not,  as  the  gentleman  from  New- 
port [Mr.  Barton]  suggests,  equally  true  of  the  ratable  system, 
for  instance  ? 

Mr.  Clark  of  Manchester.  The  adoption  of  the  population 
scheme  would  cut  out  about  fifty  representatives  from  the  large 
towns,  and  the  ratable  polls  would  not  cut  out  any. 

Mr.  Sanborn.  Perhaps  the  gentleman  from  Manchester 
[Mr.  Clark]  misunderstood  me,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  am  not 
arguing  in  favor  of  any  particular  number  of  population,  nor 
any  particular  amendment :  I  am  simply  maintaining  that  the 
basis  of  representation  should  be  a  firm  and  steadfast  one,  and 
not  an  elastic  one,  which  cannot  be  the  case  if  ratable  polls  be 
made  the  basis.  In  regard  to  a  large  fraction  being  unrepre- 
sented, as  the  gentleman  from  Newport  [Mr.  Barton]  sug- 
gested, and  as  I  was  about  to  say  when  interrupted,  does  not  the 
same  rule  apply  to  ratable  polls?  Can  you  suggest  any  sort  of 
theory  of  basis  of  representation  where  there  will  not  be  a  large 
fraction  which  will  not  be  represented?  Is  there  any  theory 
upon  which  a  representative  government  can  be  based  wherein 
a  minority  will  be  represented,  unless  we  adopt  the  minority 
system  of  representation?  For  instance:  take  any  town  you 
please  where  the  parties  are  nearly  evenly  divided  ;  one  party 
sends  three  representatives  here.  You  say  the  whole  town  is 
represented;  but  some  of  us  sometimes  think  we  are  worse 
than  that, — that  we  are  misrepresented.  Take  a  town  of  449 
ratable  polls:  how  many  representatives  do  they  get?  One. 
You  have,  then,  a  large  minority  of  ratable  polls  which  have 
no  representation, — and,  let  me  say,  that  I  think  a  ratable  poll 
in  the  general  population  of  this  state  would  represent  about 


2l8  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

six  of  the  population.     I  think  some  gentlemen  have  made  an 
estimate  to  that  effect.     Now,  sir,  I  repeat  my  question,  Can 
any  gentleman   say  that  the  basis  of  population   is  not  a  fair 
basis?     Wherein  is  there  inequality?     If  the  town  that  I  rep- 
resent is  smaller  than  the  city  of  Manchester,  have  I  the  right 
to  claim  the  same  representation  that  they  have?   Is  that  equal- 
ity?   If  my  neighboring  town  is  still  smaller  than  mine,  should 
it  have  the  same  representation  that  I  have?     I  cannot  see  any 
inequality  in  basing   it   upon  population  ;  it  affects  all  alike. 
Now,  one  word  in  regard  to  the  district  system  :  I  am  opposed 
to  it.     I  am  opposed  to  it  upon  all  grounds.     I  believe  in  the 
basis  of  population,  but  I  would  make  the  number  for  the  first 
representative  small.     I  do  not  believe  in  the  district  system  of 
representation  ;  I  believe  in  the  town  system,  and  no  other.     I 
would  make  the  basis  of  representation  such  as  would  substan- 
tially have  all  the  towns  represented  that  are  represented  now 
upon  this  floor.     That  is  the  theory  that  I  believe  in,  and  one 
that  I  am  anchored  to,  and  one  that  I  will  never  consent  to  be 
separated  from.     I  think,  if  this  excess  of  representation  is  to 
be  taken  off,  it  should  come  from  the  larger  towns,  though  not 
entirely,  with  unfair  ratio.     I  believe  it  to  be  fair  that  the  small 
towns  should  have  their  voice  in  the  government.     And,  sir, 
I  have  encountered  men  on  the  floor  of  the  house  of  represent" 
atives,  and   in   this   convention,  who,  I  think,  are   abundantly 
able   to   represent,    singly  and   alone, — without  colleagues,   or 
help,  or  instruction, — a  population  and  a  constituency  even  of 
20,000.     It  does  not  occur  to   me  that,  because  a   little   town 
of  400  inhabitants  is  to  be  represented  by  one  representative, 
that  the  next  town  that  has  800  should  be  represented  by  two. 
I  cannot  see  any  justice  in  that,  and  I  do  not  see  any  equality  in 
it,  and  I  do  not  believe  it  is  necessary.     I  believe  in  giving  all 
the  towns  a  voice  here,  and  all  the  representation  that  their 
interests  need,  and  to  stop  there,  and  take  away  the  excess  of 
representation.    Sir,  I  believe,  if  we  fail  to  give  some  scheme  to 
the   people  by  which  they  can  reduce  this  house  of  representa- 
tives, that  we  fail  in  our  duty,  and  I  propose,  sir,  to  vote  for 
the  scheme  founded  upon  population. 

Mr.  Cilley  of  Manchester.     I  have  not  yet  troubled  the  com- 
mittee with  any  remarks,  nor  do  I  propose  to  hereafter.     I 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  2IO, 

came  here,  for  one,  under  the  impression  that  whatever  we 
might  do  in  the  present  state  of  puhlic  excitement  would  be 
made  null  and  void  at  the  polls,  and  the  longer  I  stay  here  the 
more  I  am  convinced  and  confirmed  in  that  opinion.  The 
question  here  is  whether  we  shall  adopt  ratable  polls  as  a  basis, 
or  some  other  scheme.  I  fear  that  our  work  will  come  to 
naught  if  we  depart  so  much  from  the  Constitution  as  to  adopt 
any  other  than  a  ratable  poll  basis.  The  district  sytem,  or  the 
population  system,  will  be  all  new  to  the  people,  and  in  my 
judgment  it  cannot  be  explained  to  them  so  that  they  will 
adopt  either  of  those  propositions,  and  for  one,  I  am  in  favor 
of  ratable  polls.  I  am  in  favor  of  ratable  polls  as  it  stands 
now  in  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire.  For  fifty  years 
ratable  polls  had  but  one  meaning.  From  1792  to  1S42  ratable 
polls  meant  the  taxed  polls  of  the  year  before.  The  supreme 
court  ever  held  that  construction  of  the  Constitution.  What 
had  selectmen  to  do?  Simply  to  turn  back  to  the  list  of  taxes 
the  year  before,  and  that  was  the  basis  of  their  representation. 
Now,  I  believe  it  will  not  be  carried  out  to-day,  and  I  shall 
believe,  from  what  I  am  informed  by  gentlemen  who  have 
been  in  this  house,  that  to  reduce  this  house  from  sixty  to  sev- 
enty members  we  are  departing  from  this  rule  of  the  fathers. 
In  1S43  a  law  was  passed  making  every  male  inhabitant  of 
twenty-one  years  of  age  and  upwards  a  ratable  poll.  Before 
that,  it  was  simply  every  ratable  poll  was  of  twenty-one  years 
and  upwards,  but  excluded  all  over  seventy.  Before  that  time, 
ratable  polls  in  this  state  were  from  eighteen  years  to  seventy 
years,  for  some  purpose,  but  not  for  the  basis  of  representation. 
Now,  in  1S42  they  enlarged  this  rule:  they  made  more  ratable 
polls  ;  and,  through  the  construction  of  that  word,  in  1S47  they 
made  it  still  more  comprehensive;  and  in  1S72,  more  than 
that ; — so  that  now,  I  can  stop  a  train  of  cars  at  Manchester,  or 
any  other  town  or  location,  long  enough  to  take  the  names  of 
persons  over  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  they  arc  your  ratable 
polls.  I  know  that  good  lawyers  have  thought  all  this  legisla- 
tion has  been  wrong  and  unconstitutional ;  but  I  say,  if  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  have  the  right  to  enlarge  a  ratable 
poll,  they  have  a  right  to  diminish  it.  If  they  have  a  right  to 
increase,  by  any  legislation,  the  construction  of  that  word  so  as 


220  JOURNAL   OF  THE 

to  make  more  ratable  polls,  they  have  a  right,  by  legislation,  to 
diminish  it;  and,  in  my  judgment,  all  this  trouble  that  we  have 
here  to-day  has  arisen  from  the  parties  in  this  state  to  enlarge 
the  meaning  of  this  term  "  ratable  polls,"  and  therefore  I  believe 
we  should  go  back  to  the  original  wording  of  the  Constitution 
and  act  in  regard  to  it,  and  we  will  be  safer  than  by  adopting 
any  proposition  I  have  heard  here. 

Mr.  Hardy  of  Keene.  Just  one  word.  The  gentleman  from 
Manchester  [Mr.  Cilley]  says  that  all  this  comes  from  parties. 
I  think  it  is  time  we  should  fix  something  in  the  fundamental 
law  to  stop  parties  doing  it.  I  came  here  with  the  understand- 
ing that  the  house  was  to  be  diminished  in  numbers  some  way. 
This  basis  of  ratable  poll  is  the  most  unstable,  unreliable  basis 
that  can  be  adopted  here.  I  think  it  is  an  unsafe  theory  to  go 
upon,  and  I  shall  vote  against  the  proposition  when  it  comes 
before  the  committee. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Newmarket.  I  will  occupy  but  a  moment 
after  the  lucid  statement  in  regard  to  population  to  which  the 
committee  have  already  listened.  The  theory  of  the  popula- 
tion doctrine  is  that  it  is  based  on  the  popular  will,  and  ex- 
presses what  the  people  want.  Now  I  think  there  is  nothing 
more  illusive  than  this  statement.  Let  us  see  for  a  moment. 
The  gentleman  this  forenoon  stated  that  he  desired  an  expres- 
sion of  the  people  ;  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  desires  an 
expression  of  the  people,  therefore  he  votes  for  population, — 
upon  which  basis  we  shall  arrange  our  house.  Now,  I  say, 
the  true  basis  for  us  to  take — the  true  basis  on  which  we  should 
advance — is  the  basis  upon  which  we  how  make  our  house. 
Now  what  is  that  basis?  It  is  not  population,  for  the  popula- 
tion does  not  send  a  man  to  the  house  of  representatives  ;  but 
it  is  this  identical  thing  which  we  propose  to  vote  for  now, 
which  is  the  prime  factor  of  the  elective  legislative  system  ; 
and,  notwithstanding  our  declaration  of  popular  representation, 
I  assert  now  that  there  is  not  and  never  has  been  a  legislative 
government  founded  upon  the  popular  will  necessarily.  We 
approach  as  near  it  as  any  people  can  ;  but,  let  us  take  the  propo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  Canaan,  who,  perhaps,  represents 
the  population  of  Canaan, — represents  every  man,  woman,  and 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  221 

child  who  is  referred  to  in  the  national  census.  It  is  possible 
that  he  does  ;  but  it  is  quite  probable  that  the  men  or  the  women 
of  the  population  did  not  send  him  here  ;  the  children  did  not 
send  him  here  :  he  was  sent  by  the  legal  voters  of  the  town  of 
Canaan,  and  they  represent  only  one  quarter  of  the  population 
which  you  are  wanting  to  make  the  basis  of  representation  in  this 
house.  But  go  still  farther.  Suppose  he  is  elected  by  one  vote 
more  than  necessary  for  a  choice  :  instead  of  representing  one 
quarter  he  only  represents  one  eighth.  Debate  it  as  )'ou  will, 
you  are  sure  to  come  back  to  the  idea  that  the  legal  voter 
must  be  the  representative  basis  of  every  system  of  govern- 
ment. When  the  gentleman  returns  to  Canaan  he  cares  not  what 
the  seven  eighths  say  about  him,  but  is  perfectly  satisfied  if  the 
one  eighth  endorse  his  conduct.  The  basis  of  this  house  of 
representatives,  the  basis  of  this  country,  the  basis  of  every 
democracy  is  a  legal  voter.  They,  if  they  are  satisfied,  will 
enlarge  their  law  so  as  to  take  in  a  woman,  or  a  boy  of  eighteen 
years  of  age,  they  will  enlarge  it  so  as  to  take  in  a  pauper,  and 
can  accept  the  woman,  the  boy,  and  the  pauper,  and  the  popu- 
lation says  nothing  about  it. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Walker  of  Claremont,  the  proposition  of 
Mr.  Hatch  of  Keene  was  taken  from  the  table  and  considered, 
and — 

ist.     All  gentlemen  in  favor  of  basing  representation  upon 
ratable  polls  were  requested  to  stand  and  be  counted, 
And  14  gentlemen  so  voted. 

2d.     All  gentlemen  in   favor  of  basing  representation  upon 
legal  voters  were  requested  to  stand  and  be  counted, 
And  44  gentlemen  so  voted. 

3d.     All  gentlemen  in  favor  of  basing  representation  upon 
population  were  requested  to  stand  and  be  counted, 
And  232  gentlemen  so  voted. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter  called  for  the  reading  of  all 
the  propositions  making  population  the  basis  of  representation. 

And  the  propositions  of  Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord,  Mr.  Page 
of  Haverhill,  Mr.  M.  C.  Burleigh  of  Somersworth,  Mr.  Fair 
of  Littleton,  and  Mr.  Badger  of  Concord,  were  severally  read. 


222  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill,  the  following  resolu- 
tion was  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  all  the  pending  propositions  be  passed  over 
for  the  present,  and  that  the  following  resolution  be  adopted  as 
the  sense  of  this  committee,  and  reported  to  the  convention  : 

Resolved,  That  population  be  the  basis  of  representation. 

Upon  the  adoption  of  this  resolution,  a  division  being  called, 
J77  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative  and  15  in  the  negative, 
and  the  affirmative  prevailed,  and  the  resolution  was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter, 

Ordered,  That  the  committee  rise,  report  progress  to  the 
convention,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

IN    CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Emery,  chairman,  reported  that  the  committee  of  the 
whole  had  had  under  consideration  so  much  of  Part  Second  of 
the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  legislative  department,  and 
have  adopted  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  population  be  the  basis  of  representation. 

And  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua  moved  that  a  special  committee  of 
two  from  each  county,  one  of  whom  being  of  each  party,  be 
appointed,  to  whom  the  various  propositions  basing  represent- 
ation upon  population  shall  be  referred. 

And  the  same  was  declared  out  of  order  by  the  chair. 

On  motion  of  Putnam  of  Warren,  the  convention  resolved 
itself  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  so  much  of  Part  Second 
of  the  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  general  court. 

IN    COMMITTEE    OF    THE    WHOLE. 

(Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill  in  the  chair.) 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Canterbury,  the  committee 
proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Gal- 
linger  of  Concord. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  223 

Whereupon  Mr.  Lyford  withdrew  the  amendment  offered  by 
him,  and  introduced  the  following: 

Amend  said  proposition  by  making  600  inhabitants  as  a  basis 
for  the  first,  and  1,200  additional  inhabitants  as  a  mean  ratio  of 
increase  for  each  additional  representative. 

And  Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord  accepted  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Canterbury. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Farr  of  Littleton  withdrew  the  proposition 
introduced  by  him  during  the  morning  session. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  ought  not 
to  be  done  ;  for  whether  I  vote  for  the  600,  or  not,  depends 
upon  what  the  increase  will  be.  That  will  modify  my  action 
upon  the  first. 

Mr.  Davis  of  Amherst.  I  rise  simply  to  ask  for  information 
as  to  what  number  the  house  will  consist  of  by  this  last  propo- 
sition. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  I  will  answer  the  gentleman  by  saying,  that 
if  the  ratio  that  is  proposed  is  adopted,  it  will  reduce  the  house 
to  just  about  three  hundred  members — possibly  a  few  less,  but 
not  more  than  three  hundred. 

Mr.  Walker  of  Claremont.  I  rise  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
committee  to  the  way  it  will  affect  Sullivan  county  where  I 
reside.  I  represent,  in  part,  the  town  of  Claremont.  We  have, 
according  to  the  census  last  taken,  4,053  inhabitants.  W"e  send 
now,  according  to  the  old  law,  five  representatives.  By  the 
operation  of  this  amendment  proposed,  we  shall  send  about 
three  representatives — 600  inhabitants  for  the  first,  i,Sooforthe 
second,  and  3,000  for  the  third.  We  number  less  than  4,200, 
and  consequently,  cannot  send  four.  I  do  not  object  to  this 
diminishing  of  the  number  of  representatives  from  Claremont, 
if  it  were  more  equal.  You  will  notice  that  the  towns  of  Croy- 
don, Grantham,  and  Lempster  have,  respectively,  652,  608,  and 
678  inhabitants.  Under  the  old  representation,  they  have  one 
representative  ;  under  this  method  prescribed,  they  will  each 
retain  their  representation,  while  Claremont  must  be  reduced 
to  three. 


224  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Burns  of  Lancaster, 

Ordered,  That  the  committee  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask 
leave  to  sit  again. 

IN    CONVENTION. 

(The  president  having  resumed  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Page,  chairman,  reported  the  committee  of  the  whole 
had  had  under  consideration  so  much  of  Part  Second  of  the 
Constitution  as  relates  to  the  legislative  department,  without 
conclusion,  and  asked  leave  to  sit  again. 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua.  I  move  you,  sir,  that  the  rules  of 
this  convention  be  suspended. 

A  Delegate.     What  for? 

Mr.  Ramsdell.  I  make  that  motion  so  that  my  motion  for 
the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  consider  the  appointment 
of  members  of  the  house  can  be  taken  up,  as  a  small  committee 
can  better  consider  this  matter  which  we  find  difficult  to  recon- 
cile in  committee  of  the  whole,  or  in  convention. 

Mr.  Emery  of  Portsmouth.  I  call  for  the  reading  of  the  rule 
referred  to. 

The  clerk  having  read  the  rule — 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Ramsdell  was  carried,  on  division,  a 
majority  of  the  convention  having  voted  in  the  affirmative. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Ramsdell  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion, which  was  adopted. 

Resolved,  That  a  special  committee  of  twenty — two  from 
each  county — be  appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the  several 
propositions  relating  to  basing  representation  upon  population, 
and  to  report  to  the  convention. 

The  president  announced  the  special  committee  under  the 
foregoing  resolution  as  follows  : 

Messrs.  Bell  of  Exeter,  Wendell  of  Portsmouth,  Wheeler  of 
Dover,  Woodman  of  Somersworth,  Cole  of  Gilford,  Whipple 
of  Laconia,  Hubbard  of  Tamworth,  Mason  of  Moultonborough, 
Gallinger  of  Concord,  Shirley  of  Andover,  Ramsdell  of  Nashua, 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  225 

Woodbury  of  Pelham,  Hatch  of  Keene,  Buflum  of  Walpole, 
Tollcs  of  Claremout,  Sturoc  of  Sunapee,  Murray  of  Canaan, 
Putnam  of  Warren,  Benton  of  Lancaster,  Bedel  of  Colebrook. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  would  like  to  detain  the  conven- 
tion not  more  than  two  minutes.  I  dislike  to  bring  anything 
that  looks  at  politics  into  the  convention;  and  I  do  not  make 
the  statement  that  I  now  make  with  any  such  purpose,  but 
simply  to  show  the  inequality  of  this  matter,  and  ask  the  atten- 
tion of  gentlemen  to  it,  and  figure  upon  it  between  now  and 
to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord.  Here  is  a  question  of  order. 
What  is  best  for  the  whole  house  is  the  point. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  wanted  to  say,  that  in  Strafford 
county  there  are  thirty-five  representatives — thirty  republicans 
and  five  democrats.  On  this  proposition  we  should  be  reduced 
ten  republicans  and  one  democrat,  which  would  make  us  stand 
twenty  to  four.  If  I  am  wrong  in  my  calculation,  I  beg  to  be 
corrected.  I  do  not  complain  on  party  grounds,  but  I  complain 
on  the  great  principles  of  right,  and  I  will  not  submit  to  it 
unless  I  am  obliged  to. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Barton  of  Newport,  the  special  committee 
just  appointed  have  leave  to  sit  during  the  sessions  of  the  con- 
vention. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Portsmouth  moved  that  the  foregoing  special 
committee  be  instructed  to  report  to  the  convention  to-morrow 
morning  ;  but  the  same  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Mason  of  Moultonborough  was  excused  from  service 
upon  the  foregoing  committee  by  reason  of  indisposition,  upon 
his  own  motion. 

And  Mr.  Sanborn  of  Wakefield  was  appointed  on  said  com- 
mittee in  place  of  Mr.  Mason. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sanborn  of  Franklin,  the  convention 
adjourned. 


15 


226  JOURNAL    OF   THE 


FRIDAY,  December   15,  1S76. 

The  convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  president  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  b}'  the  chaplain. 

The  journal  was  read  and  approved. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Wilton  introduced  the  following  resolution, 
which  was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee,  to  consist  of  five  members,  be 
appointed  by  the  president  of  this  convention,  whose  duty  it 
shall  be  to  report  to  this  convention  the  time  when  and  the 
manner  by  which  the  several  amendments  of  the  Constitution 
proposed  by  this  convention  should  be  submitted  to  the  legal 
voters  of  this  state  for  their  action. 

Mr.  Jameson  of  Antrim  introduced  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  when  the  several  amendments  proposed  by 
this  convention  are  submitted  to  the  people  for  their  approval, 
it  shall  be  in  the  following  manner  :  The  secretary  of  state  shall 
cause  to  be  printed,  and  distributed  to  every  town-  and  ward- 
clerk  in  this  state,  ballots  equal  to  twice  the  number  of  votes 
cast  at  the  last  election  for  governor  in  said  town  or  ward, — 
said  ballots  to  be  printed  upon  plain  white  paper  as  follows : 
Headed  "  Constitutional  Amendments,"  Numbers  1,  2,  3,  and 
so  on  through  the  several  amendments  to  be  submitted,  leaving 
a  reasonable  space  upon  said  ballot  between  each  amendment 
proposed,  and  expressing  in  words  clearly  the  meaning  of  the 
proposed  change  ;  or,  if  the  amendment  be  short,  the  entire 
amendment,  so  as  to  leave  no  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the  voter  in 
regard  to  the  effect  of  said  amendment.  And  at  the  bottom  of  said 
ballot  shall  be  a  printed  note,  viz.,  This  ballot  will  be  counted 
as  an  affirmative  ballot  for  any  and  all  amendments  not  plainly 
marked,  erased,  or  followed  by  the  word  No;  and  in  that  event 
it  will  be  counted  as  a  negative  ballot  for  those  amendments  so 
marked,  erased,  or  written.  Any  voter  desiring  to  vote  against 
any  or  all  of  the  proposed  amendments  shall  mark,  erase,  or 
write   the  word  No  against  or  following  the  amendment  he 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  227 

desires  to  reject — as  directed  by  marginal  note  on  ballot ;  but 
all  ballots  shall  be  counted  as  affirmative  ballots  for  all  the 
amendments  not  so  marked,  erased,  or  written.  And  the  mod- 
erators and  town-clerks  of  the  several  towns  and  wards  in  this 
stale,  in  counting  and  returning  to  the  proper  authority  the 
votes  cast  on  all  the  constitutional  amendments  submitted 
herewith,  shall  count  and  return  in  accordance  with  the  above. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter,  the  resolution  was  laid 
on  the  table. 

Mr.  Marsh  of  Gilmanton  introduced  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  Article  9  be  so  amended  that  after  the  word 
"having"  it  shall  read  "six  hundred  inhabitants,"  instead  of 
"one  hundred  and  fifty  ratable  polls;"  and  "fifteen  hundred 
inhabitants,"  instead  of  "four  hundred  and  fifty  ratable  polls;" 
and  "fifteen  hundred  inhabitants  for  each  representative  after 
the  second." 

Which  was  laid  on  the  table  on  motion  of  Mr.  W.  H.  Y. 
Hackett  of  Portsmouth. 

Mr.  Thompson  of  Concord  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  amended  by  striking  out 
Articles  98  and  99,  and  substituting  the  following  :  "Any  amend- 
ment or  amendments  to  this  Constitution  may  be  proposed  in 
the  senate  or  house  of  representatives,  and  if  the  same  shall  be 
agreed  to  by  a  majority  of  the  members  elected  to  each  house, 
such  proposed  amendment  or  amendments  shall  then  be  entered 
on  their  respective  journals,  with  the  yeas  and  nays  taken 
thereon,  and  referred  to  the  legislature  then  next  to  be  chosen, 
and  shall  be  duly  published  ;  and  if,  in  the  legislature  next  after- 
wards to  be  chosen,  such  proposed  amendment  or  amendments 
shall  be  agreed  to  by  a  majority  of  the  members  elected  to  each 
house,  and  the  same  be  recorded  on  their  journals,  and  the  yeas 
and  nays  taken  thereon  as  aforesaid,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  the  legislature  to  submit  such  proposed  amendment  or  amend- 
ments to  the  people,  and  if  two  thirds  of  the  qualified  voters  of 
this  state,  present  and  voting  thereon  at  meetings  duly  called 
and  warned  for  that  purpose,  shall  approve  and  ratify  the  same, 


228  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

then  such  amendment  or  amendments  shall  become  a  part  of 
the  Constitution  :  Provided,  that  no  amendment  or  amendments 
shall  be  offered  to  the  people  oftener  than  once  in  six  years ; 
and  if  more  than  one  amendment  be  submitted,  it  shall  be  done 
in  such  manner  and  form  that  the  people  may  vote  for  or 
against  each  amendment  proposed  to  any  and  every  provision 
of  the  Constitution  separately. 

Which  was  declared  carried. 

Whereupon  a  division  was  called  for,  and  upon  the  question 
being  stated,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Hastings  of  Monroe  the  resolu- 
tion was  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Sanborn  of  Candia  introduced  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  no  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
shall  be  submitted  to  the  people  without  first  receiving  a  two- 
thirds  vote  of  the  convention. 

And  on  the  question  being  stated,  a  division  was  called  for. 

Whereupon,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Burrows  of  Plymouth,  the 
resolution  was  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Spring  of  Lebanon  introduced  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  Article  20  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  as  amended 
by  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Exeter  [Mr.  Marston], 
be  changed  by  striking  out  the  words  "one  hundred  dollars" 
and  inserting  "twenty  dollars,"  that  it  may  not  conflict  with  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

And  the  same  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Kimball  of  Ward  5,  Concord,  by  unanimous  consent, 
introduced  the  following  amendment : 

Amend  Article  26  by  inserting  after  the  word  "  dividing,"  in 
the  third  line,  the  word  "  counties." 

Which  was  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table,  and  be  referred  to  the 
committee  on  representation. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Durham  introduced  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  committee,  on  the  future  mode  of  amend- 
ing the  Constitution  and  other  miscellaneous  matters,  be  in- 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  229 

structed  to   inquire  into  the  expediency  of  striking  out  section 
99,  and  substituting  the  following: 

"  Whenever  a  majority  of  the  house  of  representatives  shall 
deem  it  necessary  to  alter  or  amend  this  Constitution,  they  may 
propose  such  alteration  and  amendments,  which  proposed 
amendments  shall  be  continued  to  the  next  session  of  the  legis- 
lature, and  be  published  with  the  laws  which  may  have  been 
passed  at  the  same  session  ;  and  if  two  thirds  of  such  house,  at 
the  next  session  of  the  legislature,  shall  approve  the  amend- 
ments proposed  by  yeas  and  nays,  said  amendments  shall,  by 
the  secretary  of  the  state,  be  transmitted  to  the  selectmen  of 
the  several  towns  and  cities  in  the  state,  whose  duty  it  shall  be 
to  present  the  same  to  the  legal  voters  thereof,  for  their  consid- 
eration, at  meetings  legally  warned  and  held  for  that  purpose  ; 
and  if  it  shall  appear,  in  a  manner  to  be  provided  by  law,  that 
a  majority  of  the  legal  voters  present  and  voting  at  such  meet- 
ings shall  have  approved  such  amendments,  the  same  shall  be 
valid,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  a  part  of  this  Constitu- 
tion." 

Which  was  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover,  for  the  committee  to  whom  was  re- 
ferred the  amendments  of  so  much  of  the  Constitution  as  relates 
to  the  "  Bill  of  Rights,"  "  Executive  Department,"  and  "  Relig- 
ious Test,"  respectfully  submit  the  following  report : 

Article  1  of  Amendments.  The  word  "  Protestant "  is 
stricken  from  the  bill  of  rights  wherever  it  occurs. 

Article  2.  The  legislature  has  power  to  establish  tribunals 
for  the  trial  of  causes  wherein  the  amount  in  dispute  does 
not  exceed  the  sum  of  one  hundred  dollars,  and  when  the  title 
to  real  estate  is  not  in  question,  without  the  intervention  of  a 

jury- 
Article  3.    Election  of  governor,  councillors,  senators,  and  rep- 
resentatives shall  be  held  biennially  in  the  month  of  November. 
Article  4.     The  word   "annually"   in    Part  Second    in  the 
63d  Article  of  the  Constitution  is  stricken  out. 

Article  5.  Judges  and  registers  of  probate,  solicitors  and 
sheriffs,  shall  be  biennially  elected,  agreeably  to  the  provisions 
of  Part  Second,  Article  71,  of  the  Constitution. 


230  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

Article  6.  No  person  is  disqualified  to  hold  office  by  reason 
of  his  religious  opinions. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Poor  of  Deny,  the  words  "judges  of  pro- 
bate," in  the  5th  Article,  be  stricken  out. 

And  on  the  question  being  stated,  a  division  was  called 
for,  and  113  having  voted  in  the  affirmative  and  112  in  the 
negative,  the  affirmative  prevailed,  and  the  amendment  was 
adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover,  the  words  "  registers 
of  probate,"  in  the  5th  Article,  be  stricken  out. 

And  the  same  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua.  1  voted  for  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Derry  [Mr.  Poor]  for  this  rea- 
son :  We  have  already  amended  the  Constitution  so  that  no  judge 
of  probate  can  hereafter  be  removed  for  any  reason  except  cause. 
I  adhere  to  the  remarks  which  I  made  the  other  day  favoring 
the  making  of  these  officers  elective,  and  for  the  reasons  which 
I  then  gave  the  committee.  Although  I  was  in  favor  of  taking 
the  right  of  electing  the  judge  of  probate  away  from  the  peo- 
ple, I  still  adhere  to  the  opinion  already  advanced,  that  we  had 
better  elect  the  register  and  other  officers  by  the  people. 

Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter,  for  the  special  committee  of  twenty,  to 
whom  was  referred  the  various  propositions  basing  the  repre- 
sentation upon  population,  have  attended  to  the  duty  assigned, 
and  beg  leave  to  report  that,  after  consideration  of  the  several 
propositions,  we  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  appended 
amendments : 

Strike  out  Articles  9,  10,  and  ir,  and  insert  the  following: 
"  There  shall  be  in  the  legislature  of  this  state  a  representation 
of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and  founded  upon  principles 
of  equality  ;  and  in  order  that  such  representation  may  be  as 
equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every  town  and  place  en- 
titled to  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cities,  having  600  inhab- 
itants by  the  last  preceding  general  census  of  the  state,  taken 
by  authority  of  the  United  States  or  of  this  state,  may  elect 
one   representative;   if  1S00   such  inhabitants,   may  elect   two 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  23  I 

representatives;  and  so  proceeding  in  that  proportion,  making 
1200  such  inhabitants  the  mean  increasing  number  for  every 
additional  representative :  Provided,  that  no  town  shall  be 
divided,  or  the  boundaries  of  the  wards  of  any  city  so  altered, 
as  to  increase  the  number  of  representatives  to  which  such 
town  or  citv  may  be  entitled  by  the  then  next  preceding  census  ; 
and provided further ;  that  the  legislature  in  session  next  before 
these  amendments  shall  take  effect  shall  equitably  apportion 
the  representatives  to  those  towns  which  may  have  been  divided 
or  whose  boundaries  have  been  changed  since  the  last  census, 
and  in  those  cities  the  boundaries  of  the  wards  of  which  have 
been  altered  since  the  last  census,  in  such  manner  that  the  num- 
ber of  representatives  shall  not  be  greater  than  it  would  have 
been  had  no  such  division  or  alteration  been  made. 

Article  10.  Such  towns,  places,  or  wards  as  have  less  than 
600  such  inhabitants  shall  be  classed  by  the  general  court 
for  the  purpose  of  choosing  a  representative,  so  that  each  such 
class  shall  contain  at  least  600  such  inhabitants,  and  be  sea- 
sonably notified  thereof;  and  in  every  class  formed  for  the 
above  mentioned  purpose,  the  first  annual  meeting  shall  be  held 
in  the  town,  place,  or  ward  wherein  most  of  the  inhabitants 
reside,  and  afterward  in  that  which  has  the  next  highest  num- 
ber, and  so  on,  biennially,  in  rotation  through  the  several  towns, 
places,  or  wards  forming  the  district. 

Article  11.  Whenever  any  town  or  place  entitled  to  town 
privileges,  and  wards  of  cities,  shall  not  have  six  hundred  such 
inhabitants,  and  be  so  situated  as  to  render  the  classing  thereof 
with  any  other  town,  ward,  or  place  very  inconvenient,  the 
general  court  shall  determine  when  such  town,  place,  or  ward 
shall  send  a  representative  such  proportionate  part  of  the  time 
as  the  number  of  its  inhabitants  shall  bear  to  six  hundred  ;  and 
the  legislature  shall  not  grant  to  any  town,  place,  or  ward  any 
special  privilege  to  send  a  representative. 

And  the  same  having  been  declared  adopted,  Mr.  Marston  of 
Exeter  called  for  a  division  upon  the  question. 

Mr.  Slayton  of  Manchester.  I  wish  to  ask  a  question  of  the 
chairman  of  the  committee,  and  that  is,  whether  in  the  city  of 

Manchester,  or  any  other  city  which  has  been  re-warded  since 


232  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

1S70,  there  is  any  provision  for  taking  the  census  at  the  pres- 
ent time. 

Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter.  The  committee  considered  that  subject, 
and  thought  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  make  a  new  census  of 
those  towns  and  cities,  when  the  other  towns  and  cities  were 
compelled  to  be  classed  upon  the  census  of  1S70.  They  have 
therefore  proposed  that,  in  the  case  of  the  cities  that  have  been 
re-warded,  or  towns  that  have  been  newly  divided  or  newly 
made,  the  next  legislature  shall  so  apportion  the  represent- 
atives in  those  cities  and  towns  as  to  be  equitable,  and  not  to 
increase  the  proportion  from  what  it  would  have  been  had  no 
such  alterations  been  made  :  that  is,  their  basis  would  be  the 
same  old  basis,  all  of  the  other  cities  and  towns  would  be  the 
same,  and  would  be  equitably  apportioned  upon  that  basis. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter.  I  have  taken  no  part  in  this  discus- 
sion, but  I  have  given  to  the  convention  my  own  idea  as  to 
whether  it  was  desirable  to  make  any  radical  change  in  the 
representation  of  this  state.  It  seems  to  be  the  view  of  the 
convention,  pretty  unanimously  expressed,  that  the  house  of 
representatives  should  be  greatly  reduced,  and  the  idea  has 
been  quite  as  unanimously  expressed  that  the  representation 
should  be  based  upon  population.  I  have  waited  to  see  what 
plan  or  scheme  would  be  devised  that  would  not  make  such 
radical  changes  in  the  representation,  and  in  the  right  of  towns 
and  cities  to  rejDi'esentation,  as  to  make  it  offensive  to  the  people. 
I  do  not  know  but  this  has  been  accomplished,  but  it  seems  to 
me,  upon  the  little  examination  I  have  been  able  to  make  since 
last  evening,  that  the  changes  made  are  so  radical  that  they 
never  will  be  adopted  by  the  people  in  the  world.  A  wise 
man  has  somewhere  said  th£t  a  statesman — a  wise  statesman — 
should  take  into  consideration  all  existing  facts  ;  and  before 
we  send  out  any  proposition  for  amending  the  Constitution,  I 
think  there  are  a  few  facts — indisputable  facts — that  we  ought 
to  consider.  I  do  not  think  any  one  can  deny  that  the  people 
of  New  Hampshire  have  always  been  extremely  reluctant  to 
call  a  convention  with  reference  to  the  Constitution.  I  infer 
from  that  fact,  that,  in  the  main,  they  have  been  satisfied  with 
the  old  Constitution,  and  that  they  are  reluctant  to  submit  it  to 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  233 

a  convention  because  they  fear  that  the  changes  that  may  be 
made  will  not  make  it  better,  but  worse. 

There  is  one  other  great  fact  that  I  think  it  would  be  well  to 
have  in  mind  all  the  time,— and  that  is,  that  from  our  last 
election  returns  there  were  only  30,000  of  the  voters  of  New 
Hampshire  that  voted  to  call  this  convention;  almost  11,000 
voted  against  it ;  and  40,000  declined  to  vote  at  all.  Now,  if  we 
submit  any  proposition  to  the  people  that  makes  a  radical 
change  in  the  Constitution,  that  takes  away  the  rights  of  many 
towns — the  right  they  had,  or  supposed  they  had,  to  represen- 
tation under  the  old  Constitution — is  it  likely  that  it  will  be 
adopted?  There  is  another  fact  that  perhaps  it  would  be  well 
enough  to  bear  in  mind, — and  that  is,  that  twenty-six  years  ago 
there  was  a  constitutional  convention,  and  pretty  much  the 
same  sort  of  amendments  were  sent  out  to  the  people  that  we 
are  likely  to  send  out  now; — and  what  was  the  result?  Why, 
every  article  was  rejected — every  one.  Another  one  was  subse- 
quently sent  out  that  was  adopted  :  but  all  the  main  additions — 
everything  of  any  consequence — everything,  except  the  property 
qualification  for  office,  was  rejected.  Among  other  proposi- 
tions, one  was  sent  out  to  change  the  basis  of  representation — 
not  to  make  the  basis  on  the  number  of  inhabitants,  but  to 
change  the  number  of  ratable  polls  from  one  hundred  and  fifty 
to  some  larger  number — I  forget  what,  but  to  a  considerably 
larger  number — as  the  basis  in  the  first  instance,  and  to  a  still 
larger  number  for  the  second.  Now,  what  was  the  vote  for  that 
amendment?  Instead  of  the  two-thirds  vote  necessary,  it  only 
received  about  one  fifth:  there  were  about  16,000  in  favor  and 
about  64,000  opposed.  What  hope  then  have  we  that  we  can 
make  almost  precisely  the  same  change  and  have  it  adopted? 

I  have  looked  over  the  county  of  Rockingham  and  some 
other  counties,  and  I  saw  how  it  would  probably  affect  the 
county  of  Rockingham.  Now,  there  are  in  that  county  six 
towns  that  will  be  deprived  of  one  half  of  their  representation; 
some  of  them,  like  Londonderry,  have,  for  time  whereof  the 
memory  of  man  runneth  not  to  the  contrary,  sent  a  representa- 
tive to  this  legislature  ;  five  other  towns  are  cut  down  one  half; 
while  from  the  larger  town  of  Rochester  only  one  quarter  part 
is  taken  away.     Now  that  holds  in  all  the  larger  towns.     The 


234  JOURNAL   OF  THE 

talk  has  been  in  this  convention  all  the  time  that  if  there  was  a 
reduction,  it  ought  to  be  made  in  the  larger  towns  and  cities, 
and  the  representation  of  the  small  towns  preserved  ;  but  ex- 
actly the  reverse  has  been  done,  because  the  cities  are  divided 
into  wards,  and  wards  are  regarded  as  towns  for  the  purpose  of 
representation  ;  and  there  are  six  cities  in  New  Hampshire, 
which,  if  they  were  towns,  would  send  six  representatives  on 
the  basis  of  six  hundred,  but  as  cities  they  have  thirty-eight 
wards,  and  they  send  thirty-eight  on  the  basis  of  six  hundred. 
Is  that  fair?  is  that  equal?  is  that  just?  You  increase  the 
power  of  the  great  cities  of  New  Hampshire,  enlarging  it  over 
what  it  was  before  relatively  over  small  towns.  Now,  in 
four  counties, — Rockingham,  Belknap,  Carroll,  and  Strafford, — 
there  are  fifteen  towns  deprived  of  their  representation — that 
is,  in  all ;  there  are  seven  towns  in  the  county  of  Rockingham. 
In  the  four  counties  I  have  mentioned,  there  are  fourteen  that 
have  heretofore  sent  a  representative  that  can  send  none  ;  of  these 
several  towns  two  of  them  that  have  less  than  one  hundred 
voters  have  sent  a  representative  by  special  act  of  the  legislature, 
which  by  this  bill  are  deprived  of  their  privilege.  Now,  is  it 
very  likely  that  these  towns  would  submit  to  that — that  you 
would  get  any  vote  there?  Would  it  be  agreeable  to  their 
feelings  to  be  deprived  of  their  just  representation  in  the  house? 
It  strikes  me  that  it  would  be  idle  to  send  out  any  such  amend- 
ments with  the  hope  that  they  would  vote  for  it. 

There  is  only  one  other  thought  that  I  wish  to  present,  and  I 
will  not  trouble  the  committee  more.  It  is  this, — that  all  the 
trouble,  as  I  think,  and  all  the  increase  of  representation  which 
has  created  the  whole  desire  and  induced  many  people  to  think 
that  there  ought  to  be  a  diminution  in  the  house  of  representa- 
tives, arise  from  an  abuse  of  the  law.  Now,  as  the  fathers  left 
it — as  the  old  Constitution  was — every  town  having  one  hundred 
and  fifty  ratable  polls  might  send  a  representative.  If  any  town 
had  not  one  hundred  and  fifty  ratable  polls,  it  was  the  design 
of  the  Constitution  that  they  should  be  classed  ;  but  because 
some  towns  that  were  to  be  classed  stood  so  that  it  would  be 
inconvenient  to  class  them,  the  Constitution  conferred  on  the 
legislature  the  power  to  give  to  such  towns  the  right  to  send 
a  representative.     What  was  the  result  ?     Almost  every  town 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  235 

was  given  the  right  to  send  a  representative,  and  that  increased 
the  number  over  what  was  designed  by  the  original  framers  ; 
and  it  went  so  far  that  the  legislature  gave  to  the  little  town  of 
Gosport  the  right  to  send  a  representative,  and  it  only  cast 
twelve  votes.  I  think  that  was  certainly  an  abuse  of  the  power 
the  Constitution  had  given  them. 

There  was,  up  to  the  year  1S74,  a  description  of  ratable 
polls  ;  but  the  legislature  abolished  it,  so  that  every  man  was 
regarded  as  a  ratable  poll  that  was  in  town  on  the  day  of  elec- 
tion. Now,  I  say  it  is  the  abuse  which  has  made  the  number 
of  the  legislature  beyond  what  would,  by  some,  seem  to  be  rea- 
sonable bounds.  Now  it  seems  to  me,  that  if  we  went  back 
and  tried  to  define  what  this  ratable  poll  was,  it  would  be  per- 
fectly satisfactory  to  every  town.  I  do  not  think  that  any  town 
that  had  got  an  increased  number  in  consequence  of  the  repeal 
of  the  law  some  five  or  six  years  ago  would  object  to  putting  it 
back  where  it  was.  And  if  we  had  made  that  change  and  gone 
home,  it  strikes  me  it  would  have  been  perfectly  satisfactory  to 
everybody,  and  there  would  have  been  no  occasion  to  find 
fault  with  anybody  ;  and  I  think  it  would  have  reduced  the 
house  sufficiently  ;  and  it  would  have  been  vastly  better  than 
anything  we  have  done,  or,  under  this  scheme,  are  likely  to 
do. 

Mr.  Mason  of  Moultonborough.  I  have  occupied  the  time 
of  the  committee  but  a  very  little  since  the  convention  com- 
menced, and  I  have  a  few  words  which  I  wish  to  say  here.  I 
came  here  with  the  supposition  that  flic  basis  of  representation 
would  be  upon  ratable  polls,  or  voters  ;  and,  if  you  remember,  I 
introduced  a  resolution  to  that  effect,  and  it  took,  with  other 
matters  that  came  before  the  convention,  the  sliding  scale,  until  it 
finally  slid  off.  The  question  next  came  up,  What  shall  be  the 
basis  of  this  representation?  Now,  I  cannot  see  the  force  of  the 
remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Exeter  [Mr.  Marston],  who  has 
just  taken  his  seat,  when  he  says  there  is  much  inequality  in  re- 
ducing these  towns  which  have  lost  their  representative.  You 
are  taking  away  no  rights  of  the  people — not  at  all.  It  is  not,  in 
the  abstract,  their  rights  in  any  sense  :  you  are  only  taking  away 
a  few  of  their  ambitious  men,  who  want  to  come  to  the  legisla- 
ture,— that  is  all.     The  most  of  the  men  of  the   state  are  not 


236 


JOURNAL    OF    THE 


particularly  interested.  If  you  send  but  one  representative 
where  you  now  send  two,  there  may  be  a  few  ambitious  men, 
because  they  aspire  to  vote  here  in  the  legislature,  that  want  to 
come,  who  will  be  disappointed.  And  then,  sir,  we  have  had 
it  held  up  before  us  that  it  is  necessary  to  think  that  a  num- 
ber of  towns  will  be  deprived  of  their  just  representation. 
Why,  sir,  I  will  risk  the  gentleman  here  to  represent  the  whole 
people  of  the  county,  and  to  do  it  equally  well  as  can  be  done 
by  twenty  persons  ; — so  I  see  no  objection  to  that.  And  we 
have  heard  much  of  the  articles  of  the  old  constitutional  con- 
vention being  rejected  by  the  people; — and  why  were  they? 
Because  they  sat  here  five  or  six  weeks.  [A  voice,  "  Seven 
weeks.'']  Some  one  says  "  seven  weeks  :  "  the  convention  sat 
here  so  long  that  they  wore  out  the  patience  of  the  people,  and 
disgusted  them  ;  and  I  fear,  sir,  that,  unless  limitation  is  put 
upon  us,  we  shall  give  them  the  same  objection,  unless  we  pro- 
ceed with  more  rapidity  than  we  have  done  so  far  during  this 
convention  ; — so  I  cannot  see  any  objection  at  all.  Then,  we 
have  been  referred  to  the  wisdom  of  our  fathers.  There  was 
wisdom  there  :  they  gave  to  the  people  a  good  Constitution  for 
the  times,  and  it  is  wonderful  that  it  has  been  handed  down  so 
far ;  and  I  can  only  regret  that  the  fathers  could  not  have 
looked  forward  and  seen  the  needs  of  the  state  as  they  are  now, 
this  day,  and  framed  a  constitution  fitted  for  the  times  in  which 
we  live  ;  and  if  they  had  clone  so,  you  would  not  see  four  hun- 
dred members  in  the  legislature.  So,  sir,  I  am  decidedly  in  favor 
of  the  amendment  that  has  been  reported  by  the  committee. 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster.  If  I  believed  that,  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  committee,  of  which  I  was  a  member,  were 
fair,  and  suitable  for  the  people  to  adopt  and  for  the  people  of 
•  the  state  to  ratify,  I  would  not  stand  here  to  make  any  objec- 
tions ;  but  it  seems  to  me,  sir,  there  are  very  serious  objections 
to  the  adoption  of  the  recommendations  of  the  committee.  It 
has  been  objected  here,  when  the  committee  was  upon  the 
amendment  or  suggestion,  from  another  quarter,  that  the  repre- 
sentation of  towns  would  be  largely  reduced  by  the  adoption  of 
the  district  system,  as  it  was  called,  and  by  the  representation 
of  the  people  :  it  occurred  to  a  member  that  that  would  not  be 
assented  to,  because  it  would  give  to  the  large  cities  in  the  state 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  237 

an  undue  weight  and  influence  in  the  legislature.  Now,  sir, 
this  recommendation — the  proposition  submitted  in  this  report 
— instead  of  obviating  that  objection  that  was  made  to  the  dis- 
trict system,  intensifies  it,  in  my  judgment.  The  large  cities, 
as  lias  been  remarked  by  the  gentleman  from  Exeter  [Mr.  Mars- 
ton],  are  so  divided  and  arranged  by  the  wards  for  the  purpose  of 
electing  representatives,  that  it  docs  not  hit  them  as  it  does  the 
large  towns  in  the  state  that  are  not  cities.  They  must  have,  to 
entitle  them  to  one  representative  according  to  this  basis,  600 
inhabitants;  to  entitle  them  to  two,  they  must  have  1800;  to 
entitle  them  to  three,  they  must  have  3,000; — but  in  the  cities, 
if  they  are  so  divided  that  one  ward  is  entitled.to  one  repre- 
sentative on  the  basis  of  600  inhabitants,  each  ward  may  send 
one  representative  on  that  basis.  So  you  see  that  this  proposi- 
tion keeps  down  the  small  towns  and  the  large  towns  that  are  not 
cities,  and  gives  large  cities  all  the  influence  and  weight  they  have 
now  in  the  present  arrangement,  if  not  increasing  it.  Then,  it 
classes  all  small  towns — that  is,  to  some  extent — and  author- 
izes that,  in  special  cases,  they  may  be  classed  with  other  towns  ; 
but  if  the  towns  are  not  classed,  they  may  send  that  part  of  a 
representative  that  they  are  entitled  to.  Now  look,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, at  the  small  towns  that  may  be  enumerated  throughout 
the  state,  and  you  will  find  that  a  large  number  of  that  list  of 
towns  already  have  a  number  of  inhabitants  almost  sufficient 
to  entitle  them  to  one  representative.  And  how  are  you  going 
to  apportion  their  members  to  this  house?  How  much  are  you 
going  to  reduce  the  representatives  in  the  county  of  Coos?  and 
how  much  will  you  reduce  the  house?  Now,  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  believe  the  people  of  this  state  are  in  favor  of  a  large  reduc- 
tion in  the  house  of  representatives,  and  I  believe  the  true  way 
to  reduce  their  numbers  is  by  adopting  the  district  system,  and 
have  the  people  represented  in  the  popular  branch  according  to 
numbers.  Since  I  have  been  a  member  of  this  convention,  I 
have  talked  with  a  great  number  of  intelligent  gentlemen,  and 
almost  all  I  have  seen  say,  "  I  am  in  favor  of  this;  but,  then, 
the  convention  will  not  adopt  it."  Now  I  think  that  if  all  those 
in  favor  of  that  plan  will  go  for  it,  the  convention  will  adopt 
it.  In  regard  to  the  amendment  now  before  the  convention,  I 
believe  it  to  be  unjust,  I  believe  it  to  be  unfair,  I  believe  it  to 


238  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

be  impolitic,  and,  therefore,  I  oppose  it.  I  do  not  believe  that 
the  people  sent  us  here  to  figure  in  the  way  we  have  upon 
it,  and  therefore  I  do  not  vote  for  it.  I  believe  they  want 
something  decisive — something  so  that  the  business  of  the  state 
can  be  transacted  in  a  more  business-like  way. 

Mr.  George  of  Barnstead.  No  man  in  all  this  convention 
had  a  deeper  regret  than  I  had  when  the  distinguished  gentle- 
man from  Exeter  [Mr.  Marston]  arose  and  made  the  remarks 
he  did,  and  attempted  to  throw  a  firebrand  into  this  convention, 
and  to  undo  what  this  convention  had  done.  And  I  can  tell 
him  to  be  careful  of  that  firebrand  when  he  goes  home  ;  for  our 
geological  lecturer  told  us  last  night  that  all  the  brimstone  in 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire  was  in  Rockingham  county.  The 
people  of  this  state  will  quietly  submit  to  this  report,  believing 
it  to  be  the  best  that  can  be  devised.  I  had  supposed  that  we  had 
come  to  vote,  and  that  when  our  business  was  done  we  could 
go  home  and  tell  our  constituents  that  we  had  done  something — 
not  go  home  and  tell  them  as  Mr.  Smith,  a  school  teacher  in 
northern  Vermont,  did.  He  never  got  ahead  and  he  never  went 
back;  he  staid  about  so.  "How  do  you  do,  Mr.  Smith?" 
would  be  asked.  "About  so,"  he  would  reply.  He  lisped  a 
little,  and  had  a  little  poetical  genius.  "And  how  do  you  get 
along,  Mr.  Smith?"     He  would  say, — 

"  My  hands  to  my  labor  my  sweet  hours  pass, 
And  Saturday  night  rinds  me  just  where  I  was." 

And  I  am  afraid  Saturday  night  will  find  this  convention  "just 
where  it  was." 

The  gentleman  from  Exeter  has  told  us  of  the  patriotism  and 
the  wisdom  of  our  fathers  who  framed  this  dear  old  parch- 
ment. It  is  true  that  they  brought  it  forth  with  the  profoundest 
wisdom  and  the  soundest  judgment,  and  spread  it  out  as  a 
mantle  of  protection  over  the  people  of  New  Hampshire.  The 
people  wish  to  preserve  as  much  of  it  as  they  can,  and  they 
have  sent  us  here  to  make  what  few  alterations  were  needed, 
to  do  our  work  correctly,  and  then  go  home.  The}'  have  said 
that  it  is  not  the  "  how  much,"  but  the  "  how  well "  that  is 
required  of  us.  They  have  sent  us  here  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion in  such  a  way  as  to  reduce  the  house  of  representatives  ; 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  239 

and  if  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  had  not  wished  it,  they 
would  never  have  sent  us.  If  we  go  home,  gentlemen,  without 
amending  the  Constitution  so  as  to  reduce  the  house,  I  care  not 
what  other  amendments  may  be  adopted  by  this  convention, 
the  people  of  New  Hampshire  will  never  ratify  them  by  their 
votes.  I  merely  rose,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  tell  this  committee, 
that  however  much  we  may  suffer  in  the  town  of  Barnstead, 
we  will  cheerfully  submit  to  it,  believing  it  to  be  the  best 
method  that  could  be  devised  by  the  gentlemen  of  this  conven- 
tion. In  answer  to  the  gentleman  from  Claremont,  I  would 
say  to  him  that  where  it  cuts  him  oft"  two  fifths  we  lose  one 
half.  I  am  satisfied.  Let  him  be  satisfied  in  losing  two  fifths, 
and  go  home  to  his  constituents  and  tell  them  to  follow  that 
grand  command  of  the  Almighty  to  our  first  parents,  "  to  mul- 
tiply and  replenish." 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  did  not  intend  to  occupy  the  atten- 
tion of  this  committee  upon  this  question  now  before  the  house. 
You  all  understand  that  I  am  not  in  favor  of  the  proposition  to 
base  representation  upon  population  ;  and  thus  I  am  peculiarly 
situated  in  this  matter,  having  been  a  member  of  the  committee 
who  have  tried  very  hard,  and  exhausted  all  their  ability  and 
ingenuity,  to  perfect  this  scheme  just  now  before  the  com- 
mittee. Therefore  I  say  I  am  peculiarly  situated  ;  and  I  feel 
it  my  duty,  while  I  cannot  approve  of  the  measure — for  I  do 
not  agree  with  the  proposition  to  base  representation  upon 
population — I  feel  it  my  duty  to  say  that  they  have  spent  a 
great  deal  of  time  and  exhausted  all  their  ingenuity  in  framing 
the  most  perfect  thing  that  they  could  devise.  The  members  of 
this  convention  have  declared  themselves  in  favor  of  the  basis 
of  population,  and  to  that  opinion  of  the  convention  I  most 
cheerfully  submit.  Now,  gentlemen,  if  you  are  going  to  take 
any  proposition  upon  that  basis,  I  most  heartily  commend  to 
you  the  proposition  of  the  committee.  I  am  aware  that  it 
must  be — as  all  human  work  is — subject  to  imperfections.  I 
am  aware  that  it  affects  certain  portions  of  the  state,  perhaps, 
unfavorably.  So  must  any  proposition  that  you  may  present 
before  the  convention.  You  cannot  adopt  any  scheme — even 
our  present  system  operates  in  the  same  way — that  does  not 
unequally  ailect  the  people  of  the  various  localities  and  towns 


24O  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

in  this  state.  Now,  if  the  convention  are  satisfied  that  the 
basis  of  representation  should  be  population,  I  am  satisfied, 
after  so  long  a  deliberation  as  we  have  had,  and  so  much 
careful  study  of  the  various  propositions  and  considerations 
which  came  before  the  committee,  that  you  have  got  the  best 
thing  that  you  can  get.  I  am  in  favor,  too,  of  perfecting  the 
work  of  this  convention,  and  adjourning  to-night.  We  want  a 
short  session  of  this  convention,  and  that  will  do  a  great  deal 
towards  commending  our  work  to  the  people  of  the  state.  I 
will  not  detain  you  longer,  gentlemen,  but  simply  commend 
the  proposition  of  the  committee  to  your  favorable  considera- 
tion ;  and  if  this  basis  of  population,  strikes  you  favorably,  I 
fervently  hope  that  it  will  be  adopted  by  the  people. 

Mr.  Frink  of  Greenland.  If  I  understand  the  l'eport  of  the 
committee  aright,  the  representation  of  the  cities  is  based  upon 
the  population  of  the  individual  wards,  and  not  upon  the  popu- 
lation of  the  entire  city.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  been 
unable  to  discover,  from  any  hand-book  that  I  have  had  access 
to,  what  the  population  of  the  wards  is.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
some  of  the  very  intelligent  gentlemen  representing  the  different 
wards  of  the  cities  would  be  able  to  give  this  information  ;  but 
I  think  we  are  entirely  unable  to  make  any  numerical  estimate 
of  what  will  be  the  effect  upon  the  cities  without  this  informa- 
tion. As  at  present  informed,  I  am  entirely  unable,  without 
such  information,  to  vote  intelligently  upon  this  proposition, 
and  I  believe  I  find  myself  in  much  the  same  situation  in  which 
a  great  many  other  members  of  this  convention  find  themselves. 

Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord.  In  answer  to  the  very  pertinent 
question  of  the  gentleman  from  Greenland,  I  would  say  that 
the  city  of  Concord,  according  to  the  census  of  1S70,  had 
nearly  13,000  inhabitants,  and  is  divided  into  seven  wards,  and 
is  entitled  to  fifteen  representatives.  I  will  give  the  committee 
the  exact  population  of  the  wards  which  are  affected  by  this 
amendment,  as  laid  down  in  the  ninth  census  of  the  United 
States — a  book  which  the  committee  had  access  to  last  evening. 

Ward  1,  which  is  the  northerly  ward  of  our  city,  had  a  popu- 
lation of  1,439,  anc^  sends  two  representatives.  They  lose  one 
in  that  ward  under  this  report.     Ward  4  had  a  population  of 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  24I 

2,859,  nas  three  representatives,  and  under  this  report  would 
lose  one.  Ward  5  had  a  population  of  2,232,  has  three  repre- 
sentatives, and  would  lose  one.  Ward  6  had  a  population  of 
2,726,  has  three  representatives,  and  would  lose  one.  Ward  7 
had  a  population  of  1,439,  sends  two  representatives,  and  would 
lose  one.  In  other  words,  in  answer  to  the  argument  of  the  dis- 
tinguished gentleman  from  Exeter,  the  city  of  Concord  would 
lose  five  representatives  according  to  the  new  cut-down,  which 
is  one  third  of  their  whole  representation,  and  infinitely  larger  in 
proportion  than  the  contemplated  reduction  of  the  country  towns. 
The  cities  are  the  ones  that  will  suffer,  not  the  smaller  towns. 
Let  the  same  reduction  be  applied  throughout  the  state  as 
applies  to  Concord,  and  this  scheme  would  make  a  reduction 
of  130  instead  of  90;  so  that  the  argument  of  the  gentleman 
from  Exeter  absolutely  falls  to  the  ground,  from  the  fact  that  it 
is  not  based  upon  true  premises. 

Mr.  Brown  of  Kensington.  It  has  been  said  on  the  floor  of 
this  convention,  that  if  we  cannot  build  better  than  our  fathers 
we  had  better  go  home  ;  and  I  think  if  we  recklessly  and  ruth- 
lessly tear  down  the  institutions  of  our  fathers,  we  shall  be  sad 
and  sorrowful  men  when  we  get  home.  How  long  will  it  be 
before  this  principle  will  be  applied  everywhere,  and  whole 
towns  be  deprived  of  representation,  on  the  basis  which  you 
now  propose  to  adopt  ?  I  would  say  to  the  representatives  of 
all  country  towns,  that  if  you  have  this  thing  now  in  your  hands, 
and  adopt  the  report  of  this  committee,  then  you  will  pass  in 
your  power  now  and  forever.  Suppose  that  an  emergency 
should  arise,  and  a  horde  of  French  Canadians  should  swoop 
down  upon  our  peaceful  valleys  and  increase  the  population  of 
our  country  towns  ;  suppose  that  the  "  Heathen  Chinee"  should 
come,  and  all  nations  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  increase 
the  population  ?  Why,  then  your  representatives  will  come 
here  from  the  women,  from  the  factory  girls,  and  the  children 
of  this  foreign  population.  Adopt  this  report,  gentlemen,  and 
you  lay  the  last  straw  on  the  camel's  back.  Adopt  this  report, 
and  you  pierce  the  vitals  of  this  commonwealth.  The  popula- 
tion of  all  the  countries  of  the  world,  including  the  "  Heathen 
Chinee,"  flowing  into  our  manufacturing  towns,  your  represent- 
atives will  come,  sir,  from  the  women,  from  the  factory  girls, 
16 


242  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

from  the  children  of  this  foreign  population  ; — and  the  character 
of  New  Hampshire  is  changed  ;  the  character  of  your  repre- 
sentation is  changed.  As  Paris  is  France  and  France  is  Paris, 
and  Boston  is  rapidly  becoming  Massachusetts  and  Massachu- 
setts Boston,  so  New  Hampshire  may  be  Manchester,  or  be 
entirely  controlled  by  the  manufacturing  interests  or  the  money 
interests  of  the  state.  Sir,  we  have  been  proud  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, and,  notwithstanding  there  have  been  sneers  at  her  legis- 
lation, we  have  been  proud  of  her  laws  ;  and  I  never  saw  a 
New  Hampshire  man,  wherever  I  have  lived  in  other  states, 
who  was  not  a  man  of  self-respect,  and  proud  of  the  "  Old 
Granite  State  ;"  and  the  men  whom  she  has  sent  everywhere 
through  the  country  and  through  the  world  have  honored  and 
adorned  the  places  which  they  have  occupied.  I  believe,  sir, 
that  if  this  report  is  adopted,  New  Hampshire  declines  from 
this  time  forth.  We  know,  sir,  that  our  population  have  bur- 
dened themselves  with  a  debt  to  sustain  our  institutions,  and  I 
believe  that  this  convention  was  called  for  the  very  reason  that 
these  towns  hope,  in  some  way,  to  reduce  their  taxation  ;  they 
hope,  in  some  way,  by  diminishing  this  house  to  diminish  their 
taxes.  These  towns  are  burdened  with  a  debt.  Carry  this 
report  of  the  committee,  and  you  will  put  the  straw  on  the 
camel's  back.  Adopt  this  plan  of  the  committee,  and  you  strike 
a  fatal  blow  at  these  towns.  You  may  not  see,  sir,  the  contu- 
sion, but  by  and  by  you  will  see  the  gangrene  which  will  eat 
out  the  very  vitals  of  these  towns  in  our  commonwealth  ;  and  it 
will  not  be  long  before  on  your  hills  where  your  herds  have  fed, 
and  in  your  fields  where  your  crops  have  grown,  the  owl  will 
hoot  and  desolation  will  reign  supreme. 

Mr.  Bell  of  Exeter.  It  would  ill  become  me  to  take  upon 
myself  to  meet  the  distinguished  gentlemen  who  have  taken  an 
opposite  side  on  this  question  now  before  the  convention  ;  but 
as  chairman  of  the  committee  who  had  charge  of  it,  it  is,  per- 
haps, proper  that  I  should  say  a  few  words  in  regard  to  what 
the  committee  understand  to  be  the  effect  of  the  amendments 
which  they  have  adopted.  I  believe,  sir,  with  my  distinguished 
colleague,  that  the  people  of  New  Hampshire — and,  as  I  believe, 
justly — have  a  reverence  for  the  Constitution  which  has  for  more 
than  eighty  years  governed  them.    I  believe  that  they  have  been 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  243 

tenacious  of  that  instrument ;  that  they  have  always  desired  that 
it  should  remain  substantially  intact.  I  believe  that  it  is  their 
desire  to-day  ;  but  if  there  was  any  reason  which  led  them,  at 
our  late  election,  to  call  this  convention,  it  was  the  thought 
that  in  some  way  the  representation  in  our  house  of  represent- 
atives had  become  so  large  and  so  unwieldy,  that  it  seemed  to 
them  necessary  that,  in  some  way,  some  change  should  be 
made  in  it.  I  do  not  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  it  was  the 
desire  of  the  people  to  reduce  it  to  the  extent  which  many 
gentlemen  seem  to  suppose.  I  believe — as  my  friend  General 
Marston  said  in  the  early  part  of  this  convention — in  a  large 
house  of  representatives.  I  believe  that  there  is  safety  in  num- 
bers ;  that  there  is  safety  in  the  intelligence  of  the  men  that 
come  from  the  country  towns — the  mechanics  that  come  here — 
and  that  they  aid  a  great  deal  to  restrict  the  gentlemen  who 
have  had  greater  opportunities  of  education,  and  who  are  apt, 
I  believe,  occasionally,  to  take  up  extraordinary  freaks,  from 
which  they  are  held  in  check  by  the  farmers  and  mechanics 
who  compose  so  large  a  proportion  of  our  house  of  representa- 
tives. Our  fathers,  in  making  the  basis  of  representation,  placed 
the  first  representative  at  one  hundred  and  fifty  polls,  and 
increased  in  the  ratio  of  three  hundred  for  an  additional  one. 
For  many  years  they  went  on  with  that  basis.  Gradually 
certain  evasions  of  the  Constitution  have  crept  in,  the  effect  of 
which  has  been  to  remove  that  basis.  I  believe,  sir,  that  if  we 
can  remove  those  evasions,  we  shall  substantially  reach  the  end 
for  which  our  constituents  sent  us  here  ;  that  for  that  purpose 
the  reduction  should  be  taken  from  all  towns — not  from  the 
large  towns,  or  from  the  small  towns,  or  from  the  cities,  but 
should,  I  believe,  be  taken  equally  from  all ;  and  if  we  are 
governed  by  the  original  articles  of  the  Constitution,  we  shall 
do  so.  I  suppose  that  the  amendment  proposed  substantially 
does  this. 

I  do  not  suppose  that  any  scheme  that  can  be  devised  by  man 
can  produce  an  exact  mathematical  equality  between  towns ;  it 
is  not  in  the  power  of  man.  It  has  been  objected  that  this  takes 
the  reduction  from  the  larger  towns,  and  does  not  from  any 
other.  My  friend,  Mr.  Marston,  cites  seven  towns  in  the  county 
of  Rockingham  which  have  lost  one  half  of  their  representation  ; 


244  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

others  have  lost  their  single  representatives.  In  answer  to  that, 
the  city  of  Concord,  one  of  the  largest  cities,  would  lose  one 
third  ;  the  city  of  Manchester  will  lose  more  than  one  third  ; 
the  city  of  Nashua,  a  proportionate  part.  Look  at  these  facts, 
and  then  you  will  say  that  the  reduction  was  made,  as  near  as 
could  be  done  by  any  process,  equally  upon  all  parts  of  the 
community.  The  gentleman  talks  about  there  being  a  radical 
change  in  the  Constitution.  I  undertake  to  say,  if  you  examine 
it,  there  is  no  such  radical  change  ;  that  six  hundred  inhabitants 
is  very  near — as  near  as  anything  can  be — to  the  representation 
of  our  fathers  ;  and  the  effect  of  it  will  be  to  eliminate  the  eva- 
sions of  the  Constitution  which  have  gradually  been  adopted. 
And  the  towns  to  which  he  refers  in  the  county  of  Rockingham 
as  losing  one  half  of  their  representation,  nearly,  if  not  all  of 
them,  gained  their  representation  by  the  evasive  character  of 
these  ratable  polls,  which  the  gentleman  says  is  erroneous.  He 
speaks  of  the  earliest  times,  when  Londonderry  was  represented 
by  two  representatives.  The  time  was  when  the  town  of  Lon- 
donderry had  three  representatives  in  the  house  ;  the  town  was 
then  reduced,  and  then  for  years  the  result  was  that  Deny 
sent  two  and  Londonderry  one  ;  and  it  was  not  till  this  new 
evasion  occurred  that  the  town  of  Londonderry  got  this  new 
representative.  It  would  have  to-day,  under  a  fair  interpre- 
tation of  the  Constitution  as  it  stands,  but  one  ;  and  it  is  so 
with  the  other  towns,  to  a  great  extent.  The  town  of  London- 
derry only  taxed  last  year  three  hundred  and  fifty  polls,  instead 
of  four  hundred  and  fifty — the  number  which  was  necessary  to 
entitle  them  to  the  additional  representative.  An  adjacent  town 
in  the  same  county  came  nearer  to  it :  that  had  four  hundred 
and  twenty-six  inhabitants.  So  it  is  ; — take  them  all,  you  will 
find  that  the  towns  have  gained  by  this  evasion  all  they  lose  by 
the  amendment.  But,  sir,  we  have  gained  something  more,  as 
we  deem  it,  to  this  Constitution.  One  of  the  evasions  of  the 
Constitution  which  has  grown  up  has  been  in  the  granting 
of  special  privileges  to  the  small  towns.  We  propose — this 
power  having,  as  we  deem  it,  been  abused — that  the  legislature 
shall  have  no  power  to  grant  such  privileges ;  but  if  the  town 
cannot  be  conveniently  classed,  it  should  send  a  proportionate 
time  to  which  its  population  entitles  it.     It  seems  to  me  that 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  245 

that  is  just,  equitable,  and  fair.  It  is  also  true  that  we  have 
examined  the  towns  classed.  In  almost  all  of  them  the  classing 
causes  the  abolition  of  this  evasion. 

By  regarding  that,  of  these  classed  towns,  eight  have  a  num- 
ber of  inhabitants  sufficient  to  entitle  them  to  send  the  first 
representative,  that  evasion  will  be  removed.  The  result  of 
this  view  will  be,  that  the  towns  which  are  entitled  to  represen- 
tation of  their  own,  on  this  basis  will  send  two  hundred  and 
seventy-three  representatives,  and  there  will  be  forty-seven 
towns  which  will  be  so  small  they  will  have  to  be  classed.  If 
you  allow  that  these  small  towns  are  equal  to  half  a  represent- 
ative on  an  average,  the  whole  size  of  the  house  will  be  two 
hundred  and  ninety-seven — a  reduction,  from  the  present  size, 
of  ninety-six  ;  and  I  submit  to  the  committee  that  that  is  as 
large  a  reduction  as  can  at  this  time  be  made.  By  this  prop- 
osition, large  towns  and  small  ones  all  suffer  ;  and  we  think  any 
man,  democrat  or  republican,  can  present  this  proposition  to 
the  people  as  as  fur  and  honorable  a  one  as  we  can,  at  the 
present  time,  devise.  It  is  a  return  to  the  number  of  our  fathers. 
Instead  of  being  an  overturn,  it  is  a  return  to  them  from  the 
evasions  of  other  times. 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster.  I  would  like  to  have  the  gentle- 
man inform  the  convention  if  this  proposition  docs  not  give 
to  the  cities  an  advantage  over  large  towns,  and  if  it  was  not, 
in  the  committee,  submitted  that  the  large  towns  should  be 
given  the  same  advantage. 

Mr.  Bell.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  there  may  be  a  disad- 
vantage, or  there  may  be  an  advantage.  It  will  depend  upon 
the  growth  of  the  wards  ;  upon  the  question  whether  they  will 
have  just  over  1S00  inhabitants,  or  just  under.  In  the  one  case 
it  would  increase  their  representation,  and  in  the  other, 
decrease  it. 

Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord.  Would  not  that  proposition 
largely  reduce  the  representation  of  the  city  of  Concord  for 
the  present? 

Mr.  Bell.  It  would  at  the  present  time.  It  seems  to  me  that 
there  is  no  system  of  representation  so  good  and  equitable  as  that 
upon  the  people.    Ours  is  a  government  of  and  for  the  people  ; 


246  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

and,  upon  the  basis  of  population,  representation  is  founded 
upon  the  fairest  and  most  equitable  division  possible.  I  do  not 
say  this  produces  mathematical  equality  in  every  instance.  I 
know  in  some  towns  it  bears  harder  than  in  others,  but  I  believe 
in  the  towns  where  it  does  bear  hard  they  will  see  the  good  of 
the  whole. 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster.  Whether  there  was  not  a  disagi'ee- 
ment  among  members  of  the  committee  as  to  the  reduction  that 
this  proposition  would  effect ;  whether  or  not  they  agreed  that, 
if  this  basis  were  fairly  carried  out,  it  would  be  the  same  as  the 
basis  we  now  have. 

Mr.  Bell.  There  was  a  difference  in  the  committee  as  to  what 
the  effect  of  this  reduction  would  be  ;  and  it  is  undoubtedly  true, 
as  the  gentleman  says,  that  this  is  substantially  the  same  thing  as 
returning  to  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  left  it.  It  is  a  cut- 
ting oft' of  excrescences.  The  committee  was  divided — fourteen 
to  four.  After  talking  the  matter  over,  the  greater  part  of  the 
four  were  satisfied  that  if  the  basis  of  population  was  fairly 
carried  out,  it  would  be  most  satisfactory  to  the  mass  of  the 
people. 

Mr.  Sawtell  of  Lyme.  Allusion  has  been  made  to  seven 
towns  in  Rockingham  county  that  would  lose  one  half  of  their 
representation.  I  would  inform  the  committee  that  I  represent 
one  of  that  class  of  towns ;  and  I  think  they  would  cheerfully 
agree  to  that  proposition,  and  that  they  expected  their  repre- 
sentative here  to  vote  to  reduce  the  house,  even  at  the  expense 
of  one  of  their  own  representatives. 

Mr.  Hastings  of  Monroe.  Upon  this  question  of  representa- 
tion, the  discussion  has  been  very  prolonged  and  unsatisfactory. 
I  think  it  would  be  well  for  our  constituents  if  we  should  pass 
some  cheap  and  expeditious  mode  of  amending  the  Constitu- 
tion in  the  future,  and  adjourn,  and  retire  to  our  homes. 

Mr.  Cole  of  Gilford.  As  a  member  of  that  committee,  I 
would  say,  that  the  chairman  went  on  to  state  the  effect  that 
this  amendment  would  have  on  several  counties.  Perhaps  it 
would  be  well  for  the  convention  to  understand  that  there  was 
no  partiality,  and  of  course  there  could  be  none  under  this  pro- 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  247 

vision  by  representation.  And  I  will  give  the  number  of  rep- 
resentatives that  would  be  lost  under  this  provision  from  each 
county  :  Belknap  would  lose  five, — it  is  well  known  that  this 
is  a  small  county, — Carroll  would  lose  six,  Grafton  eighteen, 
Coos  four  [Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster,  "Six"],  Merrimack 
eleven,  Sullivan  four,  Cheshire  ten,  Rockingham  seventeen, 
Hillsborough  seventeen,  Strafford  four, — making,  in  all,  ninety- 
three.  The  variation  this  morning,  from  running  of  it  over, 
made  eighty-nine  instead  of  ninety-three  ;  but  I  am  aware  that 
Belknap  county  would  lose  one  more,  perhaps  two  more,  by  a 
strict  construction  of  this  rule. 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster.  The  county  of  Coos,  as  my 
friend  Bedell  has  arranged,  would  lose  six  ; — that,  I  do  not  ob- 
ject to,  if  it  is  done  fairly.  My  objection  is  this  :  there  would 
be  no  such  reduction  as  has  been  ciphered  out. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  have  heard 
this  matter  discussed  until  we  understand  it.  I  am  in  favor  of 
the  system  proposed  by  the  committee.  All  things  considered, 
I  think  it  to  be  fair — as  fair  as  any  system  can  be.  I  believe 
it  will  be  as  likely  to  meet  with  the  approbation  of  the  people 
as  any  system  that  we  can  possibly  recommend  to  reduce  the 
house  in  a  substantial  manner.  The  objection  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Exeter  [Mr.  Marston]  was,  that  it  reduced  the  house 
too  much.  Now,  if  we  were  all  of  his  opinion,  we  should  not 
want  it  reduced  at  all.  Well,  I  do  understand  that  the  conven- 
tion want  it  reduced,  and  the  people  want  it  reduced,  and  the 
question  is  how  to  do  it.  Now  the  gentleman  from  Exeter 
says,  that  although  he  was  opposed  to  this  principle,  yet,  if  we 
adopt  the  principle  of  population  there  cannot  be  any  fairer 
basis  adopted  in  any  possible  way  than  the  one  we  have  got 
before  us  now.  We  think  that  is  right,  and  we  do  not  propose 
to  make  any  objection  to  it,  because  the  people  have  decided, 
as  he  understands  it,  and  as  I  understand  it,  that  we  will  adopt 
the  principle  of  population  as  the  basis  of  representation.  Now, 
then,  instead  of  taking  up  any  further  time  by  talk,  I  hope  we 
shall  proceed  to  a  vote  as  early  as  may  be  proper.  I  am,  and 
I  believe  the  great  majority  of  this  convention  are,  in  favor 
of  it,  and  I  hope  we  shall  proceed  at  once  to  a  vote  on  the 
question. 


248  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner.  The  proposition  before  the  com- 
mittee is  one  that  does  not  meet  my  approval,  and  one  that,  in 
my  judgment,  will  not  meet  the  approval  of  the  people  of  this 
state, — it  is  so  unfair  and  so  unjust.  I  want  to  call  attention  to 
a  certain  class  of  towns  in  my  own  county  of  Merrimack,  and 
to  correct  a  statement  or  two  made  by  my  friend  Gallinger  from 
Concord.  Dr.  Gallinger  stated  as  his  opinion — he  did  not  pre- 
sent to  us  any  census,  but  he  states  as  his  opinion — that  Ward  1 
in  Concord  would  lose  one  representative.  Gentlemen  will 
bear  me  witness  that  Ward  1  is  a  manufacturing  ward,  steadily 
increasing,  and  more  likely  to  have  three  representatives  than 
it  is  to  be  cut  down  one,  if  a  census  is  taken.  Ward  2  has 
something  like  2,000  population. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  Ward  2  has  one  representative  now,  and 
will  remain  so. 

Mr.  Ordway.  Ward  7,  I  think  he  stated,  had  2,000  popula- 
tion, and  will  be  cut  down  one. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  If  I  said  that,  I  must  be  mistaken.  Ward  7 
loses  one  representative.  It  has  not  2,000  according  to  the  last 
census,  but  about  1,800. 

Mr.  Ordway.  I  wanted  to  call  attention  to  these  errors,  and 
state  that  the  reduction  in  Merrimack  county,  with  the  exception 
of  what  is  taken  from  Concord,  comes  from  the  towns  of 
Andover,  Franklin,  Loudon,  Pittsfield,  and  Warner ;  and  in 
those  towns  there  is  a  loss  of  one  half  of  their  representation, 
and  a  disfranchisement  of  nearly  5,000  of  the  population  of 
those  towns,  while  Concord,  with  a  population  of  12,024,  can- 
not, in  my  judgment,  by  any  possibility  lose  more  than  three. 
If  you  will  take  the  wards  in  Concord,  and  give  them  600  for 
each  ward  for  the  first  representative,  and  then  take  and  divide 
that  up  in  any  reasonable  manner,  you  will  find  that  they  will 
not  lose  but  three,  and  those  will  be  in  the  three  wards. 

Mr.  Gallinger.  Will  you  allow  me  to  correct  you  ?  Ward 
1  has  a  population  of  1439  according  to  the  last  census,  and 
will  lose  one  representative  ;  Ward  4  has  a  population  of  2S59 
and  has  three  representatives,  and  of  course  it  will  lose  one  : 
Ward  5  has  2232,  and  has  three  representatives,  and  of  course 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  249 

it  will  lose  one ;  Ward  6  has  a  population  of  2726  and  three 
representatives,  and  will  lose  one  ;  Ward  7  has  a  population  of 
1:439 — if  I  said  2000,  I  made  a  prodigious  blunder ;  I  did  not 
mean  to  do  it,  because  I  knew  better — and  will  consequently 
lose  one. 

Mr.  Ordway.  Do  I  understand  from  the  gentleman  that  the 
census  is  to  be  taken  for  the  basis  in  the  city  of  Concord? 

Mr.  Gallinger.  I  understand  it  so,  unless  a  new  census  is 
taken. 

Mr.  Ordway.     Is  there  not  a  provision  for  a  new  census? 

Mr.  Gallinger.     No,  I  think  not. 

Mr.  Ordway.  In  Merrimack  county  there  is  an  absolute  loss 
in  those  few  towns  of  one  half  of  their  representation  in  the 
house  of  representatives  ;  and  as  one  of  the  representatives  from 
one  of  those  towns,  I  want  the  privilege  of  recording  my  vote 
against  it — of  acting  against  it ;  and  I  want  every  gentleman 
who  chooses  to  take  this  as  a  basis,  to  have  the  privilege 
of  doing  the  same  thing,  and  I  am  content.  I  have  no  com- 
plaints to  make.  My  deliberate  judgment  is,  that  both  sides 
are  to  be  cheated,  and  that  this  thing,  like  Pandora's  box,  is  full 
of  mischief  for  those  who  have  anything  to  do  with  it.  It  is  not 
a  fair  proposition,  but  one  that  the  people  will  spurn,  and  spit 
back  with  contempt. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter.  I  think  this :  It  is  one  of  the  most 
important  things  that  we  get  away  from  this  town  to-day.  I 
think  it  is  just  as  manifest  as  the  light  of  the  sun  that  this  prop- 
osition before  the  committee  will  receive  a  large  majority  of 
the  votes  of  the  committee  ;  and  I  think,  as  my  friend  Wheeler 
says,  that,  if  you  take  this  basis  upon  which  to  fix  your  repre- 
sentation, it  is  probably  just  as  fair  as  any  thing  you  will  get, 
and  I  hope  there  is  nobody  that  prefers  some  other  basis  who 
will  take  any  more  time  to-day.  Let  us  have  a  vote,  settle  this 
business,  and  go  home. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  on  division,  242  gentlemen 
having  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  76  in  the  negative,  the 
affirmative  prevailed. 


250  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

Whereupon,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Ordway  of  Warner,  sustained 
by  the  requisite  number  of  members,  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
called. 

And  the  i"oll  being  called,  the  following  gentlemen  answered 
in  the  affirmative : 

Rockingham  County. — Grant,  Morrill  of  Brentwood,  Greenough, 
Sanborn  of  Candia,  Bean,  Poor,  Tilton,  Danforth  of  Deerfield,  Bickford 
of  Deerfield,  Folsom,  Edgerly  of  Epping,  Bell,  Frink,  Eastman  of 
Hampstead,  Dow,  Cram,  Hanson,  Robinson,  Pickering,  Wallace  of 
Newton,  Batchelder,  Clark  of  Plaistow,  Goodwin,  Hackett  of  Ward  I, 
Portsmouth,  Tredick,  Hackett  of  Ward  2,  Portsmouth,  Morse,  Marden, 
Wendell,  Brown  of  Raymond,  Jenness,  Webster,  Paul,  Berry. 

Strafford  County. — Laighton,  Stevens  of  Dover,  Guppy,  Bruce, 
Wallingford,  Horton,  Spaulding,  Bickford  of  Dover,  Clements,  Smith 
of  Durham,  Huckins,  Woodman  of  Lee,  Meserve,  Perkins  of  Middle- 
ton,  Fox  of  Milton,  Whitehouse,  Wallace  of  Rochester,  Edgerly  of 
Rochester,  McDuffy  of  Rochester,  Jenkins,  Wentworth  of  Rollinsford, 
Morse  of  Somersworth,  M.  C.  Burleigh,  Woodman  of  Somersworth, 
Smith  of  Strafford. 

Belknap  County. — Hodgdon,  George  of  Barnstead,  Key,  Cole, 
Weeks  of  Gilford,  Richardson,  Dow,  Tuttle,  Moses,  Shaw  of  Sanborn- 
ton,  Brown  of  Tilton. 

Carroll  County. — Pitman,  George  of  Bartlett,  Abbott  of  Conway, 
Farrington,  Wakefield,  Granville,  Danforth  of  Freedom,  Cobb,  Mason 
of  Moultonborough,  Carter,  Sanborn  of  Wakefield,  Furber,  Whitton. 

Merrimack  County. — Perkins  of  Allenstown,  Shirley,  Bosworth, 
Gage,  Morse  of  Bradford,  Lyford  of  Canterbury,  Brown  of  Concord, 
Tallant,  Hollis,  Gallinger,  John  Kimball  of  Concord,  Wentworth  of 
Concord,  Benjamin  A.  Kimball  of  Concord,  Downing,  Blodgett,  Sanborn 
of  Franklin,  Noyes,  Parker,  Jones,  Harvey,  Blake,  Morse  of  Loudon, 
Morse  of  Newbury,  Colby,  Smith  of  Northfield,  Knowlton,  Robinson, 
Bean,  Buxton,  Flanders. 

Hillsborough  County. — Dow,  Sleeper,  Poor,  Pattee,  Chamberlain, 
Felch,  Cooledge,  Webber,  Woods  of  Hollis,  Sargent  of  Hudson,  Chase 
of  Litchfield,  Severance,  Maxfield,  Frederick  Smyth,  Eastman  of  Man- 
chester, Briggs,  Bartlett,  Cheney,  Jackson,  Devine,  Sullivan,  Conolly, 
O'Connor,  Moore  of  Manchester,  Holbrook,  McQuesten,  Hall,  Bean, 
Clapp,  Parker  of  Merrimack,  Crosby,  Smith  of  Mont  Vernon,  Ramsdell, 
Kimball  of  Nashua,  Saunders  of  Nashua,  Spalding  of  Nashua,  Tilton  of 
Nashua,  Dearborn,  Parkinson,  Otterson,  Gilman,  Smothers,  Hutchinson 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  25  I 

of  New  Boston,  Preston,  Woodbury,  Sco.tt,  Smith  of  Peterborough, 
Emory  of  Sharon,  Sawyer  of  Weare,  Neville,  Jones  of  Wilton. 

Cheshire  County. — Vilas,  Jackson  of  Chesterfield,  Piper,  Parker  of 
Fitzwilliam,  Bill,  Bemis,  Amidon,  Jones  of  Hinsdale,  Pierce  of  Jaffrey, 
Gustine,  Hardy,  Hatch,  Clarke  of  Keene,  Wellington,  Faulkner  of  Keene, 
Martin,  Jones  of  Marlow,  Fuller,  Melville,  Converse,  Newell,  Nims, 
Stevens  of  Stoddard,  Wilson,  Harvey,  Lombard,  Faulkner  of  Swanzey, 
Buffum,  Fisher,  Pierce  of  Westmoreland,  Albee,  Morse  of  Winchester. 

Sullivan  County. — Brooks,  Hunt  of  Charlestown,  Tolles,  Walker 
of  Claremont,  Pike  of  Cornish,  Sholes,  Alexander,  Hodgman  of  Lemp- 
ster,  Barton,  Richards,  Moulton,  Adams,  Sturoc,  Perkins  of  Unity,  Carr. 

Grafton  County.  —  Gale,  Hughes  of  Ashland,  Carbee,  Wilder, 
Batchelder  of  Bridgewater,  White,  Adams  of  Campton,  Day,  Murray, 
Blodgett  of  Dorchester,  Huse  of  Enfield,  Applebee,  Walker  of  Grafton, 
Remick,  Hurlbutt,  Parker  of  Hanover,  Page  of  Haverhill,  Powers,  Ross, 
Craig,  Atwood,  Shaw  of  Lebanon,  Cushman,  Stearns,  Parker  of  Lisbon, 
Farr,  Sawtell,  Moulton  of  Lyman,  Hastings,  Pierce  of  Orford,  Gould, 
Burrows,  Weeks,  Lyford  of  Thornton,  Putnam,  Greeley,  Blodgett  of 
Wentworth,  Hunt  of  Woodstock,  Stevens  of  Lisbon,  Bingham,  Eastman 
of  Littleton. 

Cob's  County.  —  Sawyer  of  Berlin,  Young,  Bedel,  Taylor,  Akers, 
Howard,  Perkins  of  Jefferson,  Burns,  Twitchell,  Atkinson,  Pike  of 
Stark,  Drew,  Eaton,  Brown  of  Whitefield. 

And  the  following  gentlemen  answered  in  the  negative : 

Rockingham  County. — Clarke  of  Atkinson,  Griffin,  Morrill  of  East 
Kingston,  Stickney,  Morrill  of  Exeter,  Marston,  Sanborn  of  Fremont, 
Brown  of  Kensington,  Corning,  Dickey,  Clarke  of  Northwood,  Marcy, 
Cluff,  Sawyer  of  South  Hampton. 

Strafford  County.  —  Wheeler,  Eastman  of  Farmington,  Nute, 
Berry  of  New  Durham,  George  W.  Burleigh. 

Belknap  County. — Rollins,  Woodman  of  Alton,  Sargent  of  Gilman- 
ton,  Marsh,  Dickerman. 

Carroll  County. — Mason  of  Albany,  Coleman,  Anderson,  Merrow, 
Quarles,  Plummer,  Wentworth  of  Sandwich,  Eastman  of  Jackson. 

Merrimack  County. — Gault,  Langmaid,  Thompson  of  Concord, 
Badger,  Sargent  of  Concord,  Chandler,  Critchett,  Head,  Whittemore, 
Fowler,  Ordway,  Walker  of  Warner. 

Hillsborough  County. — Jameson  of  Antrim,  Kendall,  Burtt,  Gil- 
more,  Slayton,  Clark  of  Manchester,  Cilley,  Abbott  of  Milford,  Dresser. 


252  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

Cheshire  County. — Farrar. 

Sullivan  County. — Labaree,  Stowell,  Rossiter,  Hall,  Wilson. 

Grafton  County. — Mann,  Beckford  of  Bristol,  Spring,  Heath. 

Cobs  County. — Aldrich,  Harvey,  Wight,  Benton,  Blanchard,  Wood 
of  Randolph,  Cummings,  Gordon. 

And  266  gentlemen  having  answered  in  the  affirmative,  and 
76  in  the  negative,  the  affirmative  prevailed,  and  the  report 
was  adopted. 

The  president  announced  the  committee  on  time  and  manner 
of  submitting  the  several  amendments  adopted  by  the  conven- 
tion to  a  vote  of  the  people,  to  wit,  Messrs.  Sargent  of  Concord, 
Sinclair  of  Bethlehem,  Marston  of  Exeter,  Putnam  of  Warren, 
Faulkner  of  Keene. 

Ordered,  That  the  several  amendments,  adopted  by  the  con- 
vention, to  the  Bill  of  Rights  and  the  executive  department,  be 
referred  to  the  committee  on  time  and  manner  of  submitting 
proposed  amendments  to  the  people. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Tilton  of  Deny,  the  convention  adjourned. 
AFTERNOON. 

The  convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord  moved  that  the  several  amend- 
ments to  the  legislative  department  of  the  Constitution  not 
already  considered  in  convention  be  taken  from  the  table  and 
considered. 

And  the  following  amendments  were  severally  taken  from  the 
table,  considered,  and  adopted  : 

To  Article  3.  By  striking  out  the  words  "every  year"  in 
the  first  line,  and  inserting  the  word  "  biennially." 

To  Article  5.  By  striking  out  the  word  "  annually"  in  the 
tenth  line,  and  inserting  the  word  "  biennially." 

To  Article  5.  By  adding  the  words,  "  No  town  or  incorpo- 
rated place  shall  have  the  right,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to 
suffer  their  credit  to  be  used  for  the  especial  benefit  of  any  cor- 
poration, nor  to  raise  money  for  the  purpose  of  loaning  or  giv- 
ing the  same  to  any  corporation,  nor  for  the  taking  of  stock, 
nor  to  issue  bonds  therefor." 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  253 

To  Article  9.     By  striking  out  the  word  "  annually  "  in  the 
second  line,  and  inserting  the  word  "biennially." 

To  Article  12.     By  striking  out  the  word  "annually,"  and 
inserting  the  word  "  biennially." 

To  Article  12.     By  striking  out  the  word  "March,"  and  in- 
serting the  word  "  November." 

To  Article  14.     By  striking  out  the  words  "  shall  be  of  the 
Protestant  religion." 

To  Article  16.     By  striking  out  the  word  "  annually,"  and 
inserting  the  word  "  biennially." 

To  Article  25.  By  striking  out  the  word  "  twelve,"  and  in- 
serting the  word  "  twenty-four." 

To  Article  26.  By  striking  out  the  word  "  twelve,"  and  in- 
serting the  word  "  twenty-four." 

To  Article  29.  Strike  out,  after  the  words  "  elected  a  sena- 
tor," the  words  "  who  is  not  of  the  Protestant  religion." 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord,  for  the  committee  to  whom  was 
referred  the  several  amendments  to  the  Constitution  relating  to 
the  "judiciary  department,"  having  considered  the  same,  re- 
ported the  following  recommendations,  to  wit : 

Amend  Article  73  by  adding  at  the  end  of  the  article  the 
following  words:  "but  in  no  case  shall  such  removal  be  for 
political  reasons." 

Also,  by  striking  out  the  word  "  president "  in  said  article, 
and  inserting  instead  thereof  the  word  "  governor." 

Amend  Article  77  by  striking  out  the  following  words  :  "  so 
that  a  trial  by  jury  in  the  last  resort  may  be  had." 

Also,  by  striking  out  in  said  article  the  words  "  four 
pounds,"  and  inserting  instead  thereof  the  words  "one  hundred 
dollars." 

Amend  Article  S3  by  adding  at  the  end  of  said  article  the 
following  words :  "Provided,  nevertheless,  That  no  money 
raised  by  taxation  shall  ever  be  granted  or  applied  for  the  use 
of  the  schools  or  institutions  of  any  religious  sect  or  denomina- 
tion." 

And  the  report  was  adopted. 

Ordered,    That   the    several    amendments   proposed  to  the 
judiciary  department  of  the  Constitution  be  referred  to  the  com- 


254  JOURNAL  OF   THE 

mittee  on  the  time  and  manner  of  submitting  amendments  to 
the  people. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bartlett  of  Manchester,  the  following 
resolution  was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  the  committee  on  finance  be  authorized  to 
approve  the  accounts  of  the  officers  of  the  convention  for  their 
compensation. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Thompson  of  Concord,  the  resolution  in- 
troduced by  him  during  the  morning  session,  relating  to  future 
amendments  of  the  Constitution,  was  taken  from  the  table  and 
considered. 

Mr.  Thompson.  I  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  convention  for 
one  moment.  After  having  talked  with  my  constituents,  and  with 
other  gentlemen  not  my  constituents,  I  think  the  people  ask 
permission  to  vote  upon  some  such  amendment  as  this.  The 
amendment  I  propose  has  been  read  to  this  convention  two  or 
three  times,  and  perhaps  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  explain 
how  it  will  operate,  but  I  will  say  a  word  in  regard  to  it.  The 
amendment  must  be  proposed  by  one  legislature — must  be 
adopted  by  a  majority  of  that  legislature  ;  if  adopted  by  a 
majority,  it  is  sent  out  to  the  people,  published  in  the  papers, 
or  in  any  other  way  that  the  legislature  may  order;  then,  if 
the  next  succeeding  legislature  adopt  it  by  a  majority  vote — the 
yea  and  nay  vote  to  be  recorded  on  the  journal — it  is  to  be  sub- 
mitted by  them  to  the  people  ;  and  if  the  people  accept  the 
amendment,  then  it  becomes  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution. 
Now  I  say,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen,  that  it  is  one  of  the 
most  important  amendments  that  this  convention  can  act  upon  ; 
and  if  we  go  away,  and  adjourn  without  submitting  some  such 
amendment  to  the  people  of  this  state,  in  my  judgment  we 
shall  make  a  great  mistake.  I  have  taken  pains  to  examine 
the  constitutions  of  all  the  states  in  this  Union,  except  the 
state  of  Colorado,  and  I  find  that  in  every  one  but  Kentucky, 
Nevada,  and  New  Hampshire,  amendments  to  their  Constitu- 
tions may  be  made  in  this  way.  Only  those  three  states — 
Kentucky,  Nevada,  and  New  Hampshire— require  a  convention 
to  alter  their  Constitution. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  255 

Mr.  McDuffee  of  Rochester.  It  seems  to  me  the  present 
method  of  making  amendments  to  the  Constitution  is  sufficient. 
It  seems  to  me  that,  if  it  were  very  easy  to  make  amendments, 
there  would  be  great  danger  of  too  frequent  and  ill-considered 
amendments,  to  say  nothing  of  the  danger  of  amendments  for 
party  purposes.  I  believe  there  is  nothing  so  calculated  to  de- 
stroy the  respect  for  the  Constitution  as  frequent  amendments. 
The  object  we  have,  above  all  others,  in  having  a  constitution  is, 
to  secure  permanence  and  stability  of  government ;  and  in 
looking  back  over  the  eighty-four  years  of  the  existence  of  our 
Constitution,  I  confess  if  there  is  anything  I  admire  more  about 
it  than  another,  it  is  its  permanent  character.  It  seems  to  me 
there  should  be  some  way  in  which  serious  defects  in  the  Con- 
stitution may  be  remedied,  but  I  do  not  believe  they  should  be 
remedied  until  they  get  to  be  pretty  serious  defects.  With 
regard  to  the  matter  of  expense,  I  know  there  are  many  people 
who  believe  that  the  present  method  is  too  expensive  a  method, 
because  it  necessitates  the  calling  of  a  constitutional  convention 
for  this  very  purpose.  Well,  I  believe  that  during  the  past 
eighty-four  years  that  our  Constitution  has  been  in  operation 
there  has  been  but  one  constitutional  convention — that  of  1S50. 
I  believe  that  did  cost  the  state  about  $40,000.  If  we  divide 
$40,000  by  84 — the  number  of  years  that  the  Constitution  has 
been  in  operation — we  shall  then  find  our  Constitution  has  cost 
us  annually  less  than  $500  ; — and  is  there  anybody  that  begrudges 
that  amount?  It  seems  to  me  that  the  subject  of  making  amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution  is  one  of  the  most  important  subjects 
that  can  be  brought  to  the  attention  of  any  people  ;  and  I  believe 
that  it  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  warrant  the  assembling  of 
delegates  of  the  people  to  consider  this  especial  subject,  where 
they  will  be  free  from  all  those  obstructions  that  necessarily 
attend  our  hasty  legislative  sessions.  And  besides  that,  I  believe 
that  the  calling  of  a  constitutional  convention  for  this  object  is 
calculated  to  awaken  an  interest  in  the  minds  of  the  people,  and 
to  lead  them  to  study  the  Constitution,  and  to  examine  for  them- 
selves whether  there  are  defects  in  it;  and,  if  there  are  any, 
what  are  the  best  means  to  adopt  to  amend  them.  I  hope,  for 
one,  that  the  resolution  will  not  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Bingham  of  Littleton.     If  I  understand  the  proposition 


256  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

that  is  now  before  the  convention,  it  is  something  to  be  substi- 
tuted for  the  present  mode  of  revising  the  Constitution  now 
provided  in  the  Constitution.  As  it  strikes  my  mind,  it  is  objec- 
tionable for  very  many  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  a 
temptation  open  to  be  eternally  tampering  ;  and,  in  the  next 
place,  if  you  want  to  do  anything,  you  never  can  do  it.  And  it 
seems  to  me  it  is  exceedingly  objectionable  in  both  points  of 
view.  It  is  before  you  ;  every  legislature  that  meets  can  act 
upon  it — eternally  keeping  the  people  in  a  "stew"  upon  the 
subject.  And,  in  the  next  place,  if  you  want  to  do  anything,  if 
anything  should  transpire  whereby  it  should  become  essential 
to  have  some  change  in  the  Constitution,  you  have  got  to  wait 
six  years  before  you  can  do  it.  It  seems  to  me  that  in  every 
aspect  you  had  better  let  the  Constitution  remain  as  it  is,  in  this 
respect. 

Mr.  W.  H.  Y.  Hackett  of  Portsmouth.  There  is  one  other 
objection  to  the  gentleman's  proposition,  and  that  is,  that  the 
legislature  are  to  enlarge,  or  modify,  possibly,  their  own  powers. 
And  the  Constitution,  in  my  judgment,  ought  not  to  be  altered 
until  the  people,  sending  representatives  directly  from  them- 
selves, see  occasion  to  modify  it. 

Mr.  Felch  of  Hancock  moved  to  so  amend  the  proposition  as 
to  provide  for  a  two-thirds  vote  of  each  house,  instead  of  a  ma- 
jority, in  favor  of  any  proposed  amendment. 

Whereupon  the  gentleman  from  Concord  accepted  the 
amendment,  and  so  modified  his  proposition. 

Mr.  Tilton  of  Derry  moved  to  strike  out  the  word  "  six"  be- 
fore the  word  years,  and  to  insert  the  word  "  ten,"  so  as  to 
read  "  that  no  amendment  or  amendments  shall  be  submitted 
to  the  people  oftener  than  once  in  ten  years." 

And  the  amendment  was  rejected. 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated  :  "  Shall  the  proposition 
as  amended  be  adopted?"  the  same  was  rejected  on  division. 

Mr.  Pattee  of  Goffstown  moved  to  amend  the  report  of  the 
committee  on  the  judiciary  department,  relating  to  Article  77, 
by  striking  out,  after  the  words  "  one  hundred  dollars,"  the 
words  "  title  to  real  estate  is  not  concerned." 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  257 

Mr.  Pattcc.  I  do  not  know  why  the  title  to  real  estate  should 
not  be  in  the  same  position  as  to  remedies  as  that  of  any  other 
property.  I  would  like  to  know  why  real  estate  is  not  as  val- 
uable to  us  farmers  as  other  taxed  property  is  to  others.  It 
seems  to  me  that  it  is. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Farmington.  I  happen  to  be  one  of  those 
members  who  have  no  desperate  love  for  the  jurisdiction  of 
justices  of  the  peace.  I  believe  that,  generally,  they  are  not 
competent  to  try  many  cases  ;  but,  in  regard  to  this  matter,  I 
have  simply  to  say,  as  time  is  limited  here,  that,  of  all  cases  that 
come  before  our  courts,  cases  involving  the  title  to  real  estate 
are  the  most  difficult  and  trying.  It  requires  the  highest  legal 
talent  to  untie  some  of  the  knots  concerning  real  estate,  and  the 
idea  that  these  justices — or  just  asses — should  try  those  cases, 
it  seems  to  me  is  quite  absurd. 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua.  Every  inhabitant  in  the  state  will 
insist  on  a  trial  by  jury  where  the  title  to  his  real  estate,  which 
may  be  his  hearthstone  or  his  dooryard,  is  concerned. 

Mr.  Pattee.  The  amendment  does  not  state  the  right  of  trial 
by  jury  shall  not  be  had,  but  leaves  it  to  the  legislature  to  estab- 
lish some  tribunal.  For  my  part,  I  would  rather  trust  my  case 
of  $100  or  $500  before  the  court  the  legislature  might  appoint, 
than  before  our  supreme  judicial  court  as  now  constituted. 

And  the  amendment  was  rejected  on  division. 

Mr.  Coolidge  of  Hillsborough  moved  that  this  convention 
adjourn,  without  date,  at  10  o'clock  to-morrow  morning,  and 
that  the  pay-roll  of  the  members  and  officers  be  made  out  for 
eleven  days'  attendance  for  each  member. 

Mr.  Marston  of  Exeter.  If  it  could  now  be  determined 
whether  the  business  of  this  convention  can  be  finished  to- 
morrow, or  whether  we  have  got  to  come  back  here  on  Mon- 
day, I  believe  that  it  would  accommodate  a  great  number  of  the 
delegates,  because,  if  we  are  to  come  back  here  Monday,  there 
are  a  great  many  gentlemen  who  would  like  to  go  away  on  the 
train  to-night  or  early  in  the  morning. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Farmington.     It  seems  to  me  that  we  can 
.17 


258  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

go  on  with  the  business  this  afternoon,  and  come  in  here 
to-night  at  seven  o'clock,  and  that  we  can  wind  the  whole 
thing  up  to-night.    I  hope  so,  at  any  rate. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester.  It  is  a  question  of  what  the 
committees  can  do,  not  the  convention.  I  should  like  to  hear 
from  Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord,  who  is  on  one  of  these  impor- 
tant committees. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  The  committee  has  been  appointed 
to-day  of  which  I  am  a  member.  I  understand  that  the  clerk 
has  not  been  able  to  furnish  a  list  of  it  to  its  members  yet,  on 
account  of  the  press  of  business,  and  so  I  do  not  remember 
exactly  who  the  other  members  of  the  committee  are ;  but  the 
committee  are  to  put  these  matters  into  shape,  so  as  to  submit 
them  in  the  best  way.  How  much  work  there  is  to  be  done  by 
the  committee  is  more  than  I  can  tell.  The  committee  of  the 
legislative  department,  which  is  one  of  the  most  important 
committees,  have  just  retired  to  consult  over  their  subject-mat- 
ter, and  when  they  will  report  is  more  than  we  can  tell.  After 
those  matters  are  all  in  and  the  committees  have  reported,  I  sup- 
pose this  committee  which  has  been  appointed  to-day  will  then 
take  the  whole  matter  in  hand,  and  draw  up  some  questions  to 
be  submitted  to  the  people.  How  long  it  will  take  these  com- 
mittees to  report  I  cannot  tell.  I  am  willing  to  work  late  and 
hard  in  order  that  we  may  close  this  week  ;  but  it  strikes  me 
that  we  had  better  not  undertake  to  rush  these  measures  through 
too  hastily.  It  is  better  to  do  well  what  we  do  undertake,  than 
to  use  too  much  haste,  and  make  a  mistake.  The  committee 
are  ready  to  work,  and  do  all  they  can. 

Mr.  Putnam  of  Warren.  I  agree  perfectly  with  everything 
that  the  gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr.  Sargent]  has  said  ;  but 
I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  convention  to  this  fact,  that 
it  will  be  necessary  that  every  member  residing  in  the  northern 
part  of  this  state  should  leave  here  by  half  past  ten  to-morrow 
morning  in  order  to  reach  home  to-morrow  night,  or  else  go 
Monday  ;  while,  if  we  can  close  the  convention  so  that  they  can 
leave  in  the  morning,  they  will  not  be  obliged  to  stay  here  over 
Sunday  until  Monday.  I  am  in  favor  of  doing  it.  I  do  not 
think  that  we  ought  to  do  anything  here  in  a  hurry.     I  should 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  259 

rather  come  hack  on  Monday  than  to  have  any  mistakes  made 
through  haste. 

The  President.  The  matter  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  which  was 
referred  to  a  committee,  has  been  returned  very  nearly  in  form — 
perhaps  entirely  so — and  agreed  to  in  convention  ;  and  we  are 
ready  for  the  action  of  the  committee  of  five,  of  which  Mr. 
Sargent  is  chairman.  And  so  with  the  remainder  of  the 
business. 

And  the  question  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Coolidge  being 
stated,  and  the  same  being  declared  rejected,  a  division  was 
called  for,  and  So  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  affirmative 
and  130  in  the  negative,  the  negative  prevailed,  and  the  amend- 
ment was  rejected. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport  moved  that  when  the  convention 
adjourns  this  afternoon,  it  adjourn  to  meet  on  Monday  next,  at 
four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Mr.  Barton.  In  order  to  test  the  sense  of  the  convention,  and 
have  an  expression  of  whether  we  can  finish  the  remainder  of 
the  business  to-night,  or  in  the  morning,  and  as  a  good  many 
members  desire  to  leave  to-night  or  early  in  the  morning  to 
reach  their  homes  to-morrow  night,  I  have  made  this  motion. 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover.  I  hope  that  this  motion  will  not 
prevail.  There  is  no  sort  of  difficulty  in  closing  this  business, 
I  believe,  to-night  —  certainly  by  to-morrow  morning  at  ten 
o'clock  ;  and  don't  let  us  have  the  stigma  of  coming  back  here 
next  week.     There  is  no  need  of  it. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Portsmouth.  I  hope  that  the  motion  will  not 
prevail,  because  we  have  already  had  an  expression  that  we  did 
not  wish  to  adjourn  at  once.  I  think  that  by  coming  in  here 
to-morrow  morning  we  can  finish  up  the  business,  and  the  com- 
mittees can  report  by  that  time.  I  hope  that  the  convention 
will  give  the  committees  until  to-morrow  morning  at  nine 
o'clock  to  report,  before  we  consent  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  Burns  of  Lancaster.  I  would  like  to  inquire  whether,  in 
order  to  move  an  amendment  to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Newport  [Mr.  Barton],  an  amendment  to  adjourn  to  half 
past  eight  to-morrow  morning  would  take  precedence.    Perhaps 


260  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

we  had  better  take  a  recess,  and  then  determine  in  the  interval 
what  it  is  best  to  do  under  the  circumstances.  It  has  been  sug- 
gested that  the  committees  will  not  have  time  to  report.  Now, 
certainly,  I  would  be  in  favor  of  giving  them  any  reasonable 
time.  But  I  will  just  state  here  that  one  of  these  general  com- 
mittees, to  whom  was  referred  all  matters  relating  to  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  the  executive  department,  etc.,  met  the  other  evening, 
and  after  being  together  about  one  hour,  put  everything  in  form 
to  submit  to  the  people.  My  belief  is,  that  there  is  no  difficulty 
in  having  everything  put  in  proper  form  and  done  correctly, 
and  that  we  can  close  the  session,  either  to-night  or  in  the 
morning,  in  season  for  the  trains. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport.  The  only  reason  why  I  made  the 
motion  was  simply  to  satisfy  those  persons  aixnind  me  who 
wished  to  know  whether  they  could  go  home  in  the  morning  or 
not.  It  is  immaterial  to  me  which  way  the  vote  is.  I  only 
made  the  motion  because  I  was  pressed  to  get  the  sense  of  the 
convention. 

Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua.  I  hope  that  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Newport  [Mr.  Barton]  will  not  prevail.  I  am  not  in 
favor  of  adjourning  until  all  our  work  is  carefully  done.  From 
what  I  know  of  the  committee  that  has  just  retired,  they  will 
make  no  report  until  they  have  put  their  matter  in  the  best 
possible  shape.  We  are  to  be  paid  for  to-morrow,  and  I  see  no 
reason  why  we  should  not  be  here.  If  we  should  find  that  all 
our  reports  can  be  properly  concluded  by  to-morrow  at  two 
o'clock,  and  then  that  nine  tenths  or  nineteen  twentieths  can 
reach  home  to-morrow  night,  I  see  no  objection  to  paying  the 
very  few  gentlemen,  who  cannot  reach  home  by  to-morrow 
night,  for  Sunday.  Let  us  sit  here  like  men,  and  not  go  home 
until  our  work  is  all  and  well  done. 

And  the  question  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Newport  being  stated,  the  same  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Bradford  moved  that  when  this  convention 
adjourns  this  afternoon,  it  adjourn  to  meet  this  evening  at  seven 
o'clock ;  and  that  when  it  adjourns  this  evening,  it  adjourn  to 
meet  to-morrow  morning  at  eight  o'clock. 

And  the  same  was  rejected. 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  26 1 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill  moved  that  no  new  business  be  enter- 
tained by  this  convention,  and  that  all  special  and  standing 
committees  be  requested  to  report  fully  before  the  adjournment 
of  the  convention  this  evening;  and  that  the  rules  of  the  con- 
vention be  so  far  suspended  that  such  committees  have  leave  to 
sit  during  the  sessions  of  this  convention  on  its  committee  of 
the  whole. 

And  the  same  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill  moved  that  this  convention  finally 
adjourn  at  nine  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  Page.  I  make  that  motion  because  three  fourths  of  the 
members  of  this  convention  can  reach  their  homes  to-morrow 
if  we  adjourn  at  that  hour,  and  a  large  amount  of  expense  will 
be  saved  the  state ;  and  because  a  large  number  of  these 
members  will  be  willing  to  stay  here  all  night,  if  need  be,  if 
they  know  that  our  adjournment  will  occur  at  that  time.  I 
have  therefore  moved  the  final  adjournment  of  this  convention 
at  nine  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  Quarles  of  Ossipee.  I  think  that  we  ma}-  get  through 
to-night,  and  I  hope  no  time  will  be  fixed  for  final  adjournment, 
but  that  we  shall  stay  here  and  attend  to  this  business  until  we 
get  it  done,  and  entirely  done,  and  then  adjourn  sine  die.  It  is 
my  impression  that  by  working  to-night  we  may  get  through  so 
as  to  adjourn  to-night,  so  that  nearly  all  the  members  can  get 
home  to-morrow. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Page  withdrew  his  motion. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord,  the  convention  took 
a  recess  for  one  half  hour. 

Upon  reassembling — 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster  introduced  the  following  resolution, 
which  was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  when  this  convention  adjourns  at  its  present 
session,  it  be  to  meet  on  the  third  Wednesday  of  April  next,  at 
ten  o'clock  in  the  forenoon. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bartlett  of  Manchester,  the  convention 
took  a  recess  till  seven  o'clock  this  evening. 


262  JOURNAL   OF   THE 


EVENING. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sawtell  of  Lyme,  the  vote  whereby  the 
resolution  of  Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster,  providing  that  when  the 
convention  adjourns,  it  adjourn  to  meet  on  the  third  Wednesday 
of  April  next,  was  passed,  was  reconsidered. 

And  the  resolution  being  before  the  convention — 

Mr.  Wheeler  of  Dover  moved  to  so  amend  as  to  provide  that 
the  convention  should  reassemble  at  the  call  of  the  governor. 

Whereupon,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Sanborn  of  Franklin,  the 
resolution  was  laid  on  the  table. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Brown  of  Dover,  the  following  resolution 
was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  the  convention  be  instructed 
to  make  up  the  pay-roll  of  the  convention  to  include  Saturday 
the  1 6th  instant. 

Mr.  Bingham  of  Littleton,  for  the  committee  to  whom  was 
referred  the  proposed  amendments  to  the  legislative  department 
of  the  Constitution,  having  considered  that  subject,  reported  that 
the  amendments  adopted  by  the  convention  are  as  follows : 

ist.  Amend  Article  3  by  striking  out  the  words  "  every  year," 
and  inserting  instead  the  word  "  biennially." 

2d.  Amend  Article  5  by  striking  out  the  word  "annually" 
in  the  tenth  line,  and  inserting  instead  thereof  the  word  "  bien- 
nially." 

3d.  Amend  Article  5  by  adding  at  the  end  :  '•'•Provided,  That 
the  general  court  shall  not  authorize  any  town  to  loan  or  give 
its  money  or  credit,  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  benefit  of  any 
corporation  having  for  its  object  a  dividend  of  profits,  or  in  any 
way  aid  the  same  by  taking  its  stock  or  bonds." 

4th.  Amend  by  striking  out  the  9th,  10th,  and  nth  Articles, 
and  inserting  instead  the  following : 

"Art.  9.  There  shall  be  in  the  legislature  of  the  state  a  repre- 
sentation of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and  founded  upon 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  263 

the  principles  of  equality  ;  and  in  order  that  such  representation 
may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every  town  or 
place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cities,  having 
six  hundred  inhababitants  by  the  last  general  census  of  the 
state,  taken  by  authority  of  the  United  States  or  of  this  state, 
may  elect  one  representative;  if  eighteen  hundred  such  inhabi- 
tants, may  elect  two  representatives  ;  and  so  proceeding  in  that 
proportion,  making  twelve  hundred  such  inhabitants  the  mean 
increasing  number  for  every  additional  representative  :  Pro- 
vided, That  no  town  shall  be  divided,  or  the  boundaries  of  the 
wards  of  any  city  so  altered,  as  to  increase  the  number  of  repre- 
sentatives to  which  such  town  or  city  may  be  entitled  by  the 
next  preceding  census;  and  -provided  further,  that  to  those 
towns  and  cities  which  since  the  last  census  have  been  divided, 
or  had  their  boundaries  or  ward  lines  changed,  the  general 
court,  in  session  next  before  these  amendments  shall  take  effect, 
shall  equitably  apportion  representation  in  such  manner  that 
the  number  shall  not  be  greater  than  it  would  have  been  had 
no  such  division  or  alteration  been  made. 

"Art.  10.  Such  towns,  places,  and  wards  as  have  less  than 
six  hundred  inhabitants,  shall  be  classed  by  the  general  court 
for  the  purpose  of  choosing  a  representative,  so  that  every  such 
class  shall  contain  at  least  six  hundred  inhabitants,  and  be  sea- 
sonably notified  thereof;  and  in  every  such  class  the  first  meet- 
ing shall  be  held  in  the  town,  place,  or  ward  wherein  most 
of  the  inhabitants  reside,  and  afterwards  in  that  which  has 
the  next  highest  number,  and  so  on,  biennially,  in  rotation 
through  the  several  towns,  places,  and  wards  forming  the  dis- 
trict. 

"Art.  1 1.  Whenever  any  town,  place,  or  city  ward  shall  have 
less  than  six  hundred  such  inhabitants,  and  be  so  situated  that  it 
cannot  conveniently  be  classed  with  any  other  town,  place,  or 
ward,  the  general  court  may  authorize  such  town,  place,  or 
ward  to  elect  and  send  to  the  general  court  such  proportionate 
part  of  the  time  as  the  number  of  its  inhabitants  shall  bear  to 
six  hundred ;  but  the  general  court  shall  not  authorize  any 
town,  place,  or  ward  to  elect  and  send  such  representative,  ex- 
cept as  herein  provided." 

5th.  Amend  Article  12  by  striking  out  the  word  "annually," 


264  JOURNAL   OF   THE 

and  the  word  "March,"  and  substituting  for  the  first  "bienni- 
ally," and  for  the  last  "  November." 

6th.  Amend  Article  14  by  striking  out  the  words  "  shall  be 
of  the  Protestant  religion." 

7th.  Amend  Article  16  by  striking  out  the  word  "  annual," 
and  substituting  the  word  "  biennial." 

8th.  Amend  Article  25  by  striking  out  the  word  "  twelve," 
and  substituting  therefor  "  twenty-four." 

Also,  by  striking  out  the  words  "  one  year,"  and  substituting 
therefor  "  two  years." 

9th.  Amend  Article  26  by  striking  out  the  word  "  twelve," 
and  substituting  therefor  the  word  "  twenty-four." 

10th.  Amend  Article  27  by  striking  out  the  word  "  annually  " 
and  the  word  "  March,"  and  substituting  the  words  "  bienni- 
ally "  and  "  November." 

nth.  Amend  Article  2S  by  striking  out  the  words  "  annual," 
"  annually,"  and  "March,"  and  substituting  for  the  first  "bien- 
nial," for  the  second  "  biennially,"  and  for  the  third  "  Novem- 
ber." 

1 2th.  Amend  Article  29  by  striking  out  the  words  "  who  is 
not  of  the  Protestant  religion." 

13th.  Amend  Article  31  by  striking  out  the  words  "  annu- 
ally "  and  "March,"  and  substituting  the  words  "biennially" 
and  "  November." 

14th.  Amend  Article  33  by  striking  out  the  word  "  annually," 
and  inserting  the  word  biennially." 

15th.  Amend  Article  37  by  striking  out  the  words  "  seven," 
eight,"  and  "five,"  and  substituting  for  the  first  "thirteen,"  for 
the  second  "sixteen,"  and  for  the  third  "  ten." 

And  the  question  being  stated :  "  Shall  the  report  be 
adopted?" 

Mr.  Hatch  of  Keene  moved  that  the  report  be  amended  by 
striking  out  the  3d  Article. 

Mr.  Hatch.     In  making  this  motion  I  do  it  for  several  rea- 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  265 

sons.  First,  because  it  is  inexpedient  for  us  to  legislate  on 
matters  which  have  not  been  brought  before  the  public,  and  for 
which  they  do  not  send  us  here  to  act  upon.  This  is  rather  of 
private  than  of  public  importance,  the  towns  having  for  years 
enjoyed  the  benefit  of  voting  their  taxes  as  they  have  seen  fit. 
In  twenty-two  states  in  the  Union,  the  supreme  or  highest  court 
has  decided  that  subsidies  of  this  kind  are  constitutional.  We 
have  met  here  to  improve  our  Constitution,  not  to  render  it  less 
favorable  for  the  prosperity  of  the  state  than  it  has  been  here- 
tofore. In  looking  at  this  matter,  I  am  satisfied  that  the  con- 
vention will  agree  with  me  that  the  time  has  passed  when  the 
railroads  of  New  Hampshire  are  to  be  built  by  private  interests  : 
the  towns  must  assist  in  building  the  roads,  or  they  will  not  be 
built.  In  the  votes  of  towns,  as  they  are  guarded  now  by  the 
statute  law,  towns  are  prevented  from  running  into  any  extrava- 
gance, and  the  people's  rights  and  interests  are  guarded  against 
any  corporation  that  is  or  can  be  granted  by  the  legislature.  It 
requires  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  town  to  vote  any  portion  of 
its  taxes  to  a  corporation.  It  would  be  a  shame  for  us  to  load 
down  the  Constitution  with  amendments  such  as  this,  which 
has  been  put  in  here  for  private  purposes  and  not  for  the  good 
of  the  state  ; — it  would  be  a  shame  to  go  before  our  constitu- 
ents, and  have  the  amendments  which  they  have  asked  for  voted 
down  on  account  of  this  one.  I  hope  the  convention  will  not 
adopt  this  amendment,  and,  if  necessary,  I  can  give  other  and 
better  reasons,  perhaps,  than  I  have  done. 

Mr.  Hardy  of  Keene.  It  is  perhaps  my  duty  to  say  one  or 
two  words  on  this  subject.  It  is  well  known  that  all  over  the 
country  the  people's  money  has  been  taken  for  the  purpose  of 
building  up  railroads,  perhaps  more  than  other  corporations. 
But  that  matter  was  carried  to  so  great  an  extent  in  Illinois,  that 
the  people  set  to  work,  and,  through  a  constitutional  prohibi- 
tion, stopped  these  subsidies  to  railroads,  and  stopped  themselves 
from  bankruptcy.  It  is  true,  as  the  gentleman  says,  that  the 
courts  in  twenty  states  have  decided  these  subsidies  constitu- 
tional. That  is  the  very  reason  why  I  introduced  this  amend- 
ment into  our  present  Constitution:  it  is  because  the  supreme 
court  of  New  Hampshire  have  wrongly  decided  that  it  is  con- 
stitutional for  towns  to  give  money   in    aid  of  railroads  ;   and 


266  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

they  have  decided,  within  a  day  or  two,  that  city  councils  may 
vote  away,  without  an  expression  of  the  people  in  the  cities,  the 
property  of  the  city  in  aid  of  railroads  to  the  extent  that  the 
legislature  permits  them,  which  is,  at  present,  five  per  cent,  of 
the  whole  valuation.  Now,  I  introduced  this  amendment, 
which  seemed  to  receive  the  full  acquiescence  of  this  assembly, 
because  we  have  had  some  experience  in  the  city  of  Keene  in 
the  last  year  or  two,  and  a  foretaste  of  some  very  bitter  experi- 
ence which  may  come  in  the  city  of  Keene.  Under  the  statute, 
there  was  a  vote  taken  to  aid  the  Manchester  &  Keene  Railroad 
to  the  extent  of  five  per  cent,  of  our  valuation,  which  would 
take  $130,000  of  our  property — totally  to  give  away — not  to 
take  stock,  but  to  give  away  to  that  railroad.  Now,  in  the  city 
of  Keene  more  than  one  half  of  our  tax-payers,  more  than  one 
half  of  our  legal  voters,  are  mere  poll-tax-payers,  wrho  have 
nothing  to  hazard  whatever,  and  whenever  any  enterprise  of 
that  kind  comes  up,  they  are  ready  to  vote  because  it  costs  them 
nothing;  and  it  is  for  that  reason  that  I  introduced  this,  that 
towns  shall  not  give  away  this  money.  The  supreme  court,  as 
I  said,  have  decided  that  this  law  granting  subsidies  to  rail- 
roads is  constitutional.  Now,  if  it  is  constitutional  to  give 
money  in  aid  of  the  making  of  a  railroad,  it  is  constitutional, 
if  the  legislature  passes  a  law,  to  help  repair  a  railroad.  The 
principle  is  the  same,  precisely.  And  you  go  on  a  little  further, 
and  you  find  legislative  enactments  compelling  the  people  of 
the  towns  to  support  the  railroads — the  poor,  impoverished 
railroads  along  their  lines — just  the  same  as  they  support  their 
highways  ;  so  that  the  people  would  not  only  be  called  upon  to 
build  them,  but  to  support  them.  That  is  the  reason  I  want 
this  amendment  to  pass:  I  want  this  to  go  before  the  people, 
that  they  can  fix  a  constitutional  limit  to  corporations  taking 
away  their  property.  When  that  amendment  was  passed  upon 
in  committee  and  convention,  it  was  almost  with  a  unanimous 
voice  ;  and  I  believe  this  convention  is  ready  now  to  put  this 
provision  in  the  Constitution,  and  submit  it  to  the  people.  It 
is  one  of  the  most  important  things  that  you  have  passed 
upon  since  we  have  been  here,  because  it  touches  the  whole 
property  of  the  state  ;  and  if  the  people  choose  to  leave  this  so 
open — to  sacrifice  their  property — then  I  am  satisfied.    The  gen- 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  267 

tleman  says  this  is  a  private  measure  introduced  here.  Now,  sir, 
it  is  not  a  private  measure,  except  that  if  we  are  called  upon  to 
pay  that  subsidy  which  is  voted,  it  will  take  out  of  my  pocket 
$800,  if  I  live  long  enough  to  see  it  all  paid.  I  do  not  know 
what  was  hinted  at  by  the  gentleman  from  Keene  [Mr.  Hatch] 
when  he  said  it  was  a  private  thing.  A  suit  in  equity  was 
brought  on  this  very  matter,  and  the  petitioners  represented 
one  tenth  part  of  the  taxable  property  in  Keene.  That  is  not 
a  very  private  matter.  And  I  speak  now,  not  only  for  myself, 
but  for  these  petitioners,  who  represent  one  tenth  part  of  all 
the  taxable  property  in  Keene.  It  is  a  public  matter,  and  I 
hope  that  the  amendment  will  prevail. 

Mr.  Hatch.  I  am  sorry  that  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  thrust 
the  dirty  linen  of  Keene  before  this  convention,  but  my  friend 
forces  it  upon  me.  In  1869  the  town  of  Keene  voted  a  gratuity 
of  three  per  cent,  for  the  purpose  of  building  the  Manchester 
&  Keene  Railroad.  That  matter  laid  in  abeyance  until  1S74, 
when  some  parties  connected  with  the  Cheshire  road,  who 
thought  it  was  injuring  the  prospects  and  the  receipts  of  the 
Cheshire  Railroad,  procured  a  petition,  which  was  circulated  by 
the  honorable  gentleman  who  has  just  sat  down  [Mr.  Hardy], 
upon  which  thirty-one  of  the  legal  voters  of  Keene  signed  their 
names.  It  was  a  petition  to  the  supreme  court  for  an  injunction 
against  the  city  of  Keene  paying  any  money  to  the  Manchester 
and  Keene  Railroad.  In  the  meantime,  the  authorities  of  the 
road,  fearing  that  the  vote  of  the  town  might  not  be  taken  by 
the  city  authorities,  a  petition  signed  to  the  number  of  one 
hundred  and  sixty  was  circulated,  containing  many  of  the 
names  of  the  best  buisness  men  in  Keene — the  largest  property- 
holders — asking  the  mayor  to  appoint  a  day  for  the  town-meet- 
ing. This  was  done.  Evening  meetings  were  held,  and  the 
matter  discussed  by  the  best  talent  in  the  town. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  legal  voters,  more  than  three  to  one 
voted  in  favor  of  the  gratuity  of  three  per  cent.  The  mat- 
ter was  brought  before  the  city  councils,  and  they  voted 
unanimously  three  per  cent.  In  the  mean  time,  the  contract 
having  been  made  before  this  petition  was  drawn  up,  the  con- 
tractors  fearing   that   the  courts  would   decide   against   them, 


268  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

asked  permission  to  wait  before  commencing  their  contract  on 
the  road  until  the  decision  was  rendered.  Permission  was 
granted.  They  took  other  contracts  in  the  western  part  of  the 
country,  and  in  the  spring,  when  they  were  called  upon  to 
work,  proposed  rather  to  pay  damages  than  to  leave  other 
contracts  and  come  to  New  Hampshire.  A  contract  was  made 
with  other  parties  ;  a  pool  was  formed  by  parties,  one  of  whom 
lived  in  Indiana  and  the  other  in  Chicago.  Those  men  were 
men  of  capital,  who  agreed  to  come  in  for  the  other  contractors 
to  help  build  the  road  until  it  was  half  finished  ;  then  the  con- 
tractors were  to  have  a  certain  amount  of  the  bonds  of  the  road 
to  carry  on  the  work.  In  the  mean  time,  letters  were  written 
from  Keene  to  the  gentlemen  of  capital  at  the  West,  assuring 
them  that  the  road  was  rotten  from  the  core  ;  that  no  man  of 
any  financial  strength  was  interested  in  it ;  that  the  road  never 
could  be  built ;  and  many  other  things  of  a  like  nature.  This  I 
have  from  one  of  the  contractors  himself.  I  state  it  here,  that 
it  was  written  by  some  man  in  the  interest  of  the  Cheshire  road  ; 
whether  signed  by  his  own  nane,  or  anonymously,  it  does  not 
make  any  diffei'ence.  This  matter  has  been  opposed  by  the 
Cheshire  road  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  The  contractors 
came  on  in  July,  and  over  iooo  men  were  placed  on  the  road 
at  work. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Portsmouth.  I  hardly  think  that  the  remarks 
of  the  gentleman  are  germane  to  this  question.  I  think  we 
cannot  go  into  any  transaction  of  his  in  regard  to  his  city. 

The  president  decided  that  Mr.  Hatch  might  proceed. 

Mr.  Hatch.  Over  iooo  laborers  were  placed  on  the  line  of 
the  Manchester  and  Keene  road,  and  it  was  intended  that  the 
road  should  be  open  to  Greenfield,  N.  H.,  in  the  month  of 
March  next.  The  city  of  Keene  voted  three  per  cent.  ;  the 
towns  of  Marlborough,  Harrisville,  Hancock,  and  Bennington 
voted  the  amounts  which  they  thought  they  could  afford,  and 
work  was  commenced  in  the  various  towns,  and  carried  on  with 
despatch.  The  first  payment  was  made  on  the  line.  When  the 
second  payment  became  due — these  letters  having  been  written 
to  Chicago  —  the  contractors  found  it  impossible  to  obtain 
the  funds  which  they  expected  ;  consequently  the  sub-contract- 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  269 

ors  were    unable   to   pay  their   men,  and   1000   laborers  were 
thrown    out    of  employment.      Not    only   the    merchants    and 
farmers,  but  the   boarding-house   keepers,  and   all    those  who 
furnished  anything  for  the  benefit  of  the  laborers  on  the  road, 
were  deprived  of  their  pay.     At  one  time  there  were  between 
three  hundred  and   four   hundred  men  in  the  streets  of  Keene 
demanding  food  or  pay  from  the  contractors,  who  could  not 
furnish  it  because  of  the  prejudice  that  had  been  made  in  this 
manner  by  the  efforts  of  the  Cheshire  Railroad.    Now,  I  ask  of 
the   convention   to   be  very  careful   not  to   pass   anything  this 
evening  that  they  will   be  sorry  for  hereafter.     There   is   one 
other  point  that  I  wish  to  make,  and  that  is  one  that  I  have 
seen  proposed  in  the  legislature,  and  again,  where  lawyers  are 
defeated  in  the  courts  in  their  cases,  and  come  before  the  legis- 
lature bringing  an  act  for  their  benefit.     This  belongs  to  the 
same  class  of  acts.     The  lawyers,  the  counsel  of  the  Cheshire 
road,  and  all  the  authorities  of  the  Cheshire  road — I  cannot  say 
that  it  is  the  Cheshire  road  that  does  this — but  among  those 
petitioners  there  was  a  conductor,  the  master-mechanic,  super- 
intendent, and  some  ten  or  twelve  out  of  the  thirty  employes  of 
the  Cheshire  road;   some  half  of  the  rest  were  stockholders; 
the  balance — excepting  two — were  men  who  were  connected 
by  blood,   marriage,  or  business  ties,  with  the  principal  men 
who  had  signed  this  petition. 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was 
rejected. 

Whereupon  the  report  of  the  committee  was  adopted. 

Ordered,  That  the  several  amendments  relating  to  the  legis- 
lative department  of  the  Constitution  be  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee on  time  and  manner  of  submitting  the  amendments  to 
the  people. 

Mr.  Kimball  of  Ward  5,  Concord,  for  the  committee  on 
finance,  reported  that  they  had  examined  and  allowed  the  fol- 
lowing named  bills  : 

Charles  C.  Danforth,  clerk,        .  .  .         $15  00 

A.  W.  Baker,  assistant  clerk,  (extra)         .  50  00 

L.  S.  Coan,  chaplain,  ....  56  10 


270  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

A.  W.  Quint,  sergeant-at-armSj         .         .  42  10 

C.  F.  Rowell,  door-keeper,          .          .          .  60  50 

C.  E.  Cu minings,      "                    ...  38  70 

W.  H.  Presby,           "                    ...  63  70 

A.  F.  Shepard,  page,         .         .         .         .  22  20 

C.  F.  Duffy,  page,      .....  29  20 

John  K.  Stokes,  janitor,      .          .          .          .  84  00 

John  H.  Thompson,  assistant  janitor,          .  24  00 

Morrill  &  Silsby,  stationery,       .          .          .  108  00 

Edward  A.  Jenks,  printing,  etc.,          .          .  33942 

E.  C.  Bailey,  papers,          ....  93  75 

C.  C.  Pearson  &  Co.,  hand-books,       .          .  1S7  50 

R.  C.  Danforth,  use  of  stoves,    .          .          .  126  05 

Ranlet  &  Prescott,  coal,     .         .         .         .  25  50 

And  the  same  was  approved  by  the  convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord,  the  following  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  in  all  cases  where  the  words  "  Protestant 
religion"  occur  in  the  Constitution  as  a  qualification  for  office, 
the  same  be  stricken  out. 

(Mr.  Bingham  of  Littleton  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Frink  of  Greenland  introduced  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  convention  be  presented 
to  the  Hon.  Daniel  Clark,  president,  for  the  able  and  impartial 
manner  with  which  he  has  discharged  the  duties  of  presiding 
officer. 

Whereupon  the  president  resumed  the  chair,  and  addressed 
the  convention  as  follows  : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Co?ivention :  You  have  put  me  under  the 
necessity  of  frequent  acknowledgments  of  your  kindness.  Next 
to  the  approval  of  one's  own  conscience,  is  the  approval  of  his 
associates  and  friends.  Especially  gratifying  to  me  is  it  that 
my  labors  here  have  been  approved  by  gentlemen  so  eminent 
as  ai'e  many  of  the  members  of  this  convention.  I  have  experi- 
enced, gentlemen,  through  the  convention,  your  kind  consider- 
ation, and  can  bear  witness  to  the  candor,  intelligence,  and 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  2J\ 

ability  with  which  you  have  performed  your  work.  I  suggested 
to  you  in  the  outset  that  it  was  one  of  delicacy,  and  you  have 
met  the  emergency  to  the  full  of  my  expectations.  I  know  you 
must  have  met  it  to  the  approval  of  your  own  consciences. 
They  tell  us,  gentlemen,  that  this  Constitution  of  ours  is  old- 
fashioned  ;  but  if  the  casket  be  old-fashioned  and  somewhat 
defaced,  it  still  contains  the  precious  jewels  of  liberty  and  free 
government.  I  trust  that  when  you  return  to  your  constituents, 
gentlemen,  whatever  may  be  the  fate  of  the  amendments  which 
you  have  adopted,  they  may  say,  "  Well  done,  good  and  faithful 
servants."  You  have  done  your  labors  with  discretion  and  with 
care.  Wishing  you,  gentlemen,  a  safe  return  to  your  homes 
when  you  shall  adjourn,  and  trusting  you  will  find  your  homes 
uninvaded  by  disease  or  sorrow,  and  that  there  will  be  extended 
to  you — as  I  know  there  will — an  affectionate  greeting,  I  submit 
to  you  and  to  our  constituents  the  work  of  this  convention. 

Mr.  Frink.  There  can  be  but  one  voice  in  this  convention 
in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  our  president  has  presided 
over  our  deliberations.  That  we  have  been  able  to  complete  the 
business  of  this  convention  within  the  brief  period  covered  by 
our  session  is  due  very  largely  to  his  experience  and  perfect 
knowledge  of  parliamentary  law.  I  know,  too,  that  all  will  bear 
me  witness,  that  his  urbanity  and  strict  impartiality  have  ren- 
dered the  discharge  of  the  somewhat  delicate  duties  imposed 
upon  us  an  agreeable  task.  I  have,  therefore,  Mr.  Chairman, 
in  behalf  of  this  convention,  introduced  the  resolution  which 
has  just  now  been  read,  and  trust  it  may  be  unanimously 
adopted. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  I  rise  to  second  the  motion,  that  that 
resolution  prevail.  We  have  been  together  but  a  short  time,  but 
we  have  succeeded  in  accomplishing  a  large  amount  of  business. 
We  have  in  all  our  deliberations  succeeded.  We  have  been 
harmonious,  and  there  has  been  a  good  state  of  feeling  exist- 
ing during  the  whole  session  between  the  members  ;  and  this  to 
a  great  extent  has  been  produced  by  the  manner  in  which  the 
master  has  held  the  reins,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  has  guided 
the  course  of  the  body.  It  is  usual  to  pass  a  vote  of  thanks,  as  a 
mere  matter  of  form  in  most  cases  ;  but  in  this  case  I  hope  it  will 


2/2  JOURNAL    OF   THE 

be  no  matter  of  form,  but,  in  the  hearts  and  minds  of  the  mem- 
bers of  this  convention,  a  matter  of  substance  which  we  all  ap- 
prove. Certainly,  we  can  all  bear  witness  to  the  truth  of  this  as- 
sertion, that  our  presiding  officer  has  on  all  these  occasions  per- 
formed his  duties  with  great  ability,  great  impartiality,  and  has 
enabled  the  convention  to  proceed  with  great  dispatch  in  dis- 
charging its  business  ;  and  very  much  of  our  success,  as  I  have 
said,  is  due  to  the  manner  in  which  his  duties  have  been  dis- 
charged. I  hope  that  this  resolution  will  pass  unanimously, 
and  that  all  will  feel  it  is  an  act  of  justice  which  every  one 
wishes  to  render  ;  that  it  is  the  truth,  and  we  all  feel  that  it  is 
not  a  matter  of  form,  but  a  matter  of  substance. 

And  the  question  being  stated,  the  resolution  was  unani- 
mously adopted. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Portsmouth  moved  that  the  convention  ad- 
journ to  eight  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

And  the  same  was  rejected. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster,  the  resolution  pro- 
viding for  an  adjournment  of  the  convention  to  the  third 
Wednesday  of  April  next  was  taken  from  the  table,  and  con- 
sidered. 

And  on  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  same  was  refer- 
red to  the  committee  on  time  and  manner  of  submitting  the 
proposed  amendments  to  the  people. 

Mr.  Slayton  of  Manchester  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion, which,  on  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  was  referred  to 
the  committee  on  time  and  manner  of  submitting  the  proposed 
amendments  to  the  people  : 

Resolved,  That  when  this  convention  adjourns,  it  will  ad- 
journ subject  to  the  call  of  the  president  of  this  convention,  if 
he,  in  his  judgment,  deems  it  best  for  the  state. 

Mr.  Benton  of  Lancaster  moved  to  adjourn  to  to-morrow 
morning,  at  eight  o'clock. 

And  the  same  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
lution,  which  was  adopted  : 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  273 

Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  the  convention  be  hereby  ten- 
dered to  the  secretary,  assistant  secretary,  chaplain,  serjeant-at- 
arms,  official  reporter,  door-keepers,  and  pages,  for  the  faithful 
discharge  of  their  several  duties. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Ramsdell  of  Nashua,  the  convention  ad- 
journed to  eight  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 


SATURDAY,  Dec.  16,  1S76. 

The  convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  president  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  chaplain. 

The  journal  was  read  and  approved. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord,  for  the  committee  appointed  to  re- 
port to  the  convention  the  time  when  and  the  manner  in  which 
the  several  amendments  of  the  Constitution  proposed  by  this 
convention  should  be  submitted  to  the  legal  voters  of  this  state 
for  their  action,  respectfully  reports  that  they  have  attended  to 
the  duty  assigned  them,  and  that  he  was  instructed  to  report 
the  accompanying  resolutions,  in  the  form  following: 

STATE   OF   NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 

IN   THE    YEAR   OF    OUR    LORD    ONE    THOUSAND    EIGHT    HUNDRED 
AND    SEVENTY-SIX. 

In  the  Convention  of  Delegates  assembled  at  Concord  on  the 
first  Wednesday  of  December,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventy-six,  for  the  purpose  of 
revising  the  Constitution  of  this  state,  in  pursuance  of  an  act 
of  the  legislature  passed  July  eighteenth,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventy-six, — 
I.  Resolved,  That  the  alterations  ami  amendments  proposed 
to  the  Constitution  shall  lie  submitted  to  the  qualified  voters  of 
the  state,  at   the  annual  town-meetings  holden  on  the  second 
Tuesday  of  March,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  seventy-seven,  to  be  by  them  acted  upon  at  said 
meetings,  or  any  adjournment  thereof  within  the  same  week. 
18 


274  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

II.  Resolved,  That  the  selectmen  of  the  several  towns,  wards, 
and  places  in  the  state  be  directed  to  insert  in  their  warrants, 
calling  the  said  annual  town-meetings,  an  article  to  the  follow- 
ing effect :  "  To  take  the  sense  of  the  qualified  voters  whether 
the  alterations  and  amendments  of  the  Constitution  proposed 
by  the  constitutional  convention  shall  be  approved." 

III.  Resolved,  That  the  sense  of  the  qualified  voters  shall  be 
taken  by  ballot  upon  each  of  the  following  questions  submitted 
to  them  by  this  convention  : 

1.  Do  you  approve  of  striking  out  the  word  "  Protestant"  in 
the  Bill  of  Rights,  as  proposed  in  the  amended  Constitution? 

2.  Do  you  approve  of  so  amending  the  Constitution  that  the 
general  court  shall  be  authorized  to  provide  for  the  trial  of 
causes  in  which  the  value  in  controversy  does  not  exceed  one 
hundred  dollars,  and  title  to  real  estate  is  not  concerned,  with- 
out the  intervention  of  a  jury,  as  proposed  by  the  amended 
Constitution? 

3.  Do  you  approve  of  the  biennial  election  of  governor, 
councillors,  members  of  the  senate  and  house  of  representa- 
tives, and  biennial  sessions  of  the  legislature,  as  proposed  in 
the  amended  Constitution? 

4.  Do  you  approve  of  a  house  of  representatives  based  upon 
population,  and  constituted  and  chosen  as  provided  in  the 
amended  Constitution  ? 

5.  Do  you  approve  of  a  senate  of  twenty-four  members,  to  be 
constituted  and  chosen  as  provided  in  the  amended  Constitu- 
tion ? 

6.  Do  you  approve  of  the  election,  by  the  people,  of  registers 
of  probate,  solicitors,  and  sheriffs,  as  provided  in  the  amended 
Constitution? 

7.  Do  you  approve  of  abolishing  the  religious  test  as  a  quali- 
fication for  office,  as  proposed  in  the  amended  Constitution? 

8.  Do  you  approve  of  prohibiting  the  general  court  from 
authorizing  towns  or  cities  to  loan  or  give  their  money  or  credit 
to  corporations,  as  proposed  in  the  amended  Constitution? 

9.  Do  you  approve  of  changing  the   time  for  holding  the 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  275 

state  election  from  March  to  November,  as  proposed  in  the 
amended  Constitution  ? 

10.  Do  you  approve  of  authorizing  the  general  court  to  pro- 
vide that  appeals  from  a  justice  of  the  peace  may  he  tried  by 
some  other  court  without  the  intervention  of  a  jury,  as  proposed 
in  the  amended  Constitution? 

11.  Do  you  approve  of  authorizing  the  general  court  to  in- 
crease the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of  the  peace  to  one  hundred 
dollars,  as  proposed  in  the  amended  Constitution? 

12.  Do  you  approve  of  the  proposed  amendment  prohibiting 
the  removal  from  office  for  political  reasons? 

13.  Do  you  approve  the  proposed  amendment  prohibiting 
money  raised  by  taxation  from  being  applied  to  the  support  of 
the  schools  or  institutions  of  any  religious  sect  or  denomination, 
as  proposed  in  the  amended  Constitution? 

IV.  Resolved,  That  the  votes  on  the  said  questions  shall  be 
recorded,  copied,  sealed  up,  labelled,  directed,  and  returned  by 
the  town-clerks  to  the  secretary  of  state,  on  or  before  the  first 
Tuesday  of  April,  1S77,  under  the  same  penalty  as  is  by  law 
prescribed  for  neglect  to  return  the  votes  for  governor,  and  said 
votes  shall  be  by  the  secretary  of  state  seasonably  laid  before 
the  governor  and  council. 

V.  Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  state  is  hereby  directed 
to  furnish  blanks  to  the  town-clerks  of  the  different  towns, 
wards,  and  places,  for  the  returns  of  the  votes  on  said  ques- 
tions, in  the  following  form  : 

"  State  of  New  Hampshire. 

"  Town  of  .     County  of  .     At  a  legal 

meeting  of  the  qualified  voters  of  the  town  of ,  holden 

on  the  second  Tuesday  of  March,  a.  i>.  1S77,  tne  votes  on  the 
several  questions  involving  the  alterations  and  amendments  of 
the  Constitution,  submitted  to  the  qualified  voters,  were  as 
follows  : 

"Question  1st, — Yeas, .     Nays. . 

"Question   2d, — Yeas,  .     Nays,    ,  &c,  &c,  to   and 

including  Question   13. 

"Attest :  Town  Clerk." 


276  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

VI.  Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  this  convention  be 
directed  to  procure  to  be  printed  one  hundred  thousand  copies 
of  the  Constitution  as  altered  and  amended  by  this  convention, 
and  the  same  number  of  copies  of  the  questions  to  be  proposed 
to  the  qualified  voters,  and  the  same  number  of  these  resolutions, 
and  to  cause  the  same  to  be  distributed,  as  soon  as  may  be,  to 
the  town-clerks  of  the  respective  towns,  wards,  and  places  in 
the  state,  for  the  use  of  the  qualified  voters,  in  numbers  propor- 
tioned as  near  as  may  be  to  the  number  of  the  legal  voters  in 
the  said  respective  towns,  wards,  and  places  :  and  it  is  made 
the  duty  of  said  clerks  seasonably  to  distribute  the  same  among 
said  voters. 

VII.  Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  state  be  also  required 
to  furnish  an  equal  number  of  printed  ballots  containing  said 
questions  to  be  thus  voted  upon,  and  that  they  be  distributed 
as  provided  in  the  preceding  resolution,  a  reasonable  time  pre- 
vious to  the  March  election. 

VIII.  Resolved,  That  the  governor  and  council,  prior  to  the 
third  Tuesday  of  April,  a.  d.  1S77,  shall  open  and  count  said 
votes,  and  make  a  record  thereof;  and  the  governor  shall  forth- 
with issue  his  proclamation  announcing  the  result  of  the  vote 
on  each  of  said  questions  submitted  to  the  people. 

IX.  Resolved,  That  such  of  the  proposed  amendments  as 
shall  receive  the  requisite  number  of  votes  shall  take  effect  and 
be  in  force  at  such  time  or  times  as  the  general  court,  at  its 
June  session  for  the  year  1S77,  shall  fix  upon  and  determine; 
but  if  said  legislature  shall  not  so  fix  upon  the  time  or  times 
at  which  said  amendments  shall  take  effect,  then  at  such  time 
or  times  as  shall  be  fixed  and  determined  by  this  convention  at 
an  adjourned  session  thereof. 

Mr.  Page  of  Haverhill  moved  to  amend  the  report  by  insert- 
ing the  words  "judges  and  "  before  the  word  "  registers,"  in 
the  sixth  question. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord.  It  seems  to  me,  that,  where  all  the 
property  in  every  county  in  this  state  has  to  pass  through  the 
hands  of  these  judges  of  probate  in  the  course  of  a  few  years, — 
where  all  the  widows  and  orphans  in  the  state  are  placed  in  the 


CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  2JJ 

hands  and  under  the  control  of  these  judges  of  probate  for  the 
time  being, — it  is  all-important  that  we  should  have  men 
who  are  selected  for  their  integrity  and  their  ability,  and  that  it 
should  not  he  left  to  party  caucuses  to  select  such  men  for 
judges  of  probate  as  they  think  will  carry  the  most  votes  with- 
out regard  to  their  qualifications. 

Mr.  Langmaid  of  Chichester.  These  men  who  have  been 
put  in  office  for  political  reasons  cannot  be  removed,  and  that 
is  what  we  find  fault  with. 

Mr.  Ilodgdon  of  Barnstead.  The  very  reason  given  by  the 
gentleman  from  Concord  [Mr.  Sargent],  about  our  property 
going  through  the  hands  of  these  officers,  is  why  we  want  to 
have  something  to  say  about  it  ourselves;  we  want  to  have 
something  to  say  about  selecting  them,  in  order  to  obtain  bet- 
ter men  for  that  important  position. 

Mr.  Quarles  of  Ossipee.  The  judges  of  probate  are  re- 
quired to  decide  as  grave  questions  of  law,  wherein  as  much 
ability  and  study  are  required  to  decide  them,  as  come  before  the 
supreme  court.  Men  on  the  probate  bench  should  understand 
law,  and  should  be  men  who  can  decide  questions  correctly, 
and  not  send  parties  up  to  the  supreme  court,  at  great  cost  and 
expense,  to  have  their  decisions  reversed  and  sent  back.  I  hope 
we  can  trust  to  the  executive  to  appoint  them,  and  have  their 
offices  permanent.  It  takes  a  long  time  for  a  man  to  get 
posted  in  the  law  of  probate  courts,  and  it  seems  to  me,  for  the 
interests  of  the  people,  the  judges  should  be  appointed,  and  not 
elected. 

And  upon  the  question  being  stated,  the  amendment  was 
declared  rejected. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Langmaid  of  Chichester  called  for  the  yeas 
and  nays  ;  and,  the  call  being  sustained  by  the  requisite  number 
of  members,  the  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

And  upon  the  roll  being  called,  the  following  gentlemen 
answered  in  the  affirmative  : 

Rockingham  County.  —  Sanborn  of  Candia,  Griffin,  Danforth  of 
Deerfield,  Folsom,  Edgerly  of  Epping,  Hanson,  Pickering,  Batchelder, 
Brown  of  Raymond,  Hoyt,  Sawyer  of  South  Hampton. 


278  JOURNAL    OF    THE 

Strafford  County. — Woodman  of  Lee,  Perkins  of  Middleton,  Berry 
of  New  Durham,  Woodman  of  Somersworth,  Foss,  Smith  of  Strafford. 

Belknap  County. — Hodgdon,  Perkins  of  Center  Harbor,  Key,  Dow, 
Brown  of  Tilton. 

Carroll  County. — Pitman,  George  of  Bartlett,  Farrington,  Granville, 
Cobb,  Plummer,  Wentworth  of  Sandwich,  Furber. 

Merrimack  County. — Perkins  of  Allenstown,  Gage,  Gault,  Lyford 
of  Canterbury,  Langmaid,  Tallant,  Wentworth  of  Concord,  Parker, 
Jones,  Blake,  Morse  of  Loudon,  Morse  of  Newbury,  Knowlton,  Robin- 
son, Buxton,  Flanders. 

Hillsborough  County.  —  Burtt,  Dow,  Sleeper,  Starrett,  Felch, 
Cooledge,  Webber,  Sargent  of  Hudson,  Chase  of  Litchfield,  Severance, 
Jackson,  Devine,  Sullivan,  O'Connor,  Duffy  of  Nashua,  Hutchinson  of 
New  Boston,  Woodbury. 

Cheshire  County. — Vilas,  Jackson  of  Chesterfield,  Gustine,  Clarke 
of  Keene,  Newell,  Stevens  of  Stoddard,  Fisher,  Pierce  of  Westmoreland, 
Albee,  Morse  of  Winchester. 

Sullivan  County. — Sholes,  Alexander,  Hodgman  of  Lempster, 
Adams  of  Springfield,  Perkins  of  Unity,  Carr. 

Grafton  County. — Gale,  Carbee,  Mann,  Wilder,  Applebee,  Remick, 
Page  of  Haverhill,  Ross,  Craig,  Atwood,  Stevens  of  Lisbon,  Eastman  of 
Littleton,  Sawtell,  Moulton  of  Lyman,  Burrows,  Weeks,  Lyford  of 
Thornton,  Putnam,  Greeley,  Blodgett  of  Wentworth,  Hunt  of  Wood- 
stock. 

Coos  County. — Bedel,  Taylor,  Akers,  Burns,  Atkinson,  Blanchard, 
Drew,  Eaton,  Brown  of  Whitefield. 

And  the  following"  gentlemen  answered  in  the  negative  : 

Rockingham  County. — Clarke  of  Atkinson,  Grant,  Greenough,  Poor, 
Tilton,  Bickford  of  Deerfield,  Stickney,  Morrill  of  Exeter,  Marston, 
Eastman  of  Hampstead,  Dow,  Cram,  Brown  of  Kensington,  Corning, 
Dickey,  Wallace  of  Newton,  Moulton,  Clarke  of  Northwood,  Clark  of 
Plaistow,  Jenness,  Webster,  Cluff,  Berry. 

Strafford  County. — Guppy,  Bruce,  Wheeler,  Clements,  Smith  of 
Durham,  Eastman  of  Farmington,  Nute,  Meserve,  Fox  of  Milton, 
McDuffy  of  Rochester,  Jenkins,  M.  C.  Burleigh. 

Belknap  County. — George  of  Barnstead,  Weeks  of  Gilford,  Sargent 
of  Gilmanton,  Marsh.  Moses,  Dickerman. 

Carroll  County. — Coleman,  Merrow,  Carter,  Quarles,  Hubbard, 
Whitton. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  2JO, 

Merrimack  County. — Brown  of  Concord,  Fox  of  Concord,  Thomp- 
son of  Concord,  Gallinger,  Badger,  Sargent  of  Concord,  John  Kimball 
of  Concord,  Chandler,  Benjamin  A.  Kimball  of  Concord,  Downing, 
Critchett,  Hammond,  Sanborn  of  Franklin,  Harvey,  Colby,  Fowler, 
Bean,  Ordway,  Walker  of  Warner. 

Hillsborough  County. — Davis,  Kendall,  Pattee,  Woods  of  Hollis, 
Gilmore,  Maxfield,  Frederick  Smyth,  Eastman  of  Manchester,  Clark  of 
Manchester,  Briggs,  Slayton,  Cheney,  Moore  of  Manchester,  Holbrook, 
McQuesten,  Hall,  Bean,  Parker  of  Merrimack,  Abbott  of  Milford, 
Crosby,  Ramsdell,  Spalding  of  Nashua,  Tilton  of  Nashua,  Smothers, 
Preston,  Scott,  Smith  of  Peterborough,  Wood  of  Weare,  Sawyer  of 
Weare,  Neville,  Jones  of  Wilton,  Dresser. 

Cheshire  County. — Parker  of  Fitzwilliam,  Jones  of  Hinsdale,  Hardy, 
Hatch,  Wellington,  Faulkner  of  Keene,  Martin,  Converse,  Nims,  Harvey. 

Sullivan  County. — Brooks,  Labaree,  Hunt  of  Charlestown,  Tolles, 
Stowell,  Winn,  Rossiter,  Pike  of  Cornish,  Hall,  Wilson,  Cooper,  Sturoc. 

Grafton  County. — Hughes  of  Ashland,  Batchelder  of  Bridgewater, 
Beckford  of  Bristol,  Adams  of  Campton,  Huse  of  Enfield,  Hurlbutt, 
Parker  of  Hanover,  Spring,  Cushman,  Stearns,  Parker  of  Lisbon,  Farr, 
Hastings,  Pierce  of  Orford. 

Cods  County. — Harvey,  Benton,  Gordon. 

And  no  gentlemen  having  answered  in  the  affirmative  and 
139  in  the  negative,  the  negative  prevailed,  and  the  amendment 
was  rejected. 

The  question  recurring  upon  the  report,  it  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Sargent  of  Concord,  for  the  committee  to  whom  was 
referred  the  resolutions  relating  to  the  adjournment  of  the  con- 
vention, having  considered  the  same,  reported  the  following 
resolution,  and  recommended  its  adoption  : 

Resolved,  That  when  this  convention  adjourn,  it  be  to  meet 
again  at  the  call  of  the  president  of  this  convention,  such  call 
to  be  issued,  and  such  adjourned  meeting  to  be  held,  some  time 
in  the  year  1S77. 

Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord  moved  to  amend  the  resolution  by 
inserting  after  the  words  "  president  of  this  convention,"  the 
words  "  or,  in  case  of  his  death,  by  the  governor  of  the  state." 

Which  amendment  was  accepted,  and  the  resolution  as 
amended  was  adopted. 


280         JOURNAL    OF    THE     CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gallinger  of  Concord,  the  following  reso- 
lution was. adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  the  sum  of  five  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  be 
allowed  to  George  J.  Manson,  in  full,  for  his  services  as  official 
stenographer  to  this  convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  O'Connor  of  Manchester,  the  convention 
adjourned,  to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  president,  or,  in  case  of 
his  death,  of  the  governor  of  the  state. 

Whereupon  the  president  declared  the  convention  adjourned, 
subject  to  call  under  the  preceding  resolution. 

T.  J.  SMITH,  Secretary. 
A  true  copy  : — 

Attest :  T.  J.  SMITH,  Secretary. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  AT  LOS  ANGELES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


JUN     4  195tf 


JAN  8o|  ^78 
mrl  JflN  R  o  IS80 


MAR  1  9  1981 


Form  L-9 
20m-l,'  41(1122) 


r. 


j*> 


3   1158  00273   1197 


JK 

2925 

1876 

A23 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  813  793    7 


~"   -  '  '. 


SssS^i'CtesSJSScsx^ 


